Lords Sitting of 23 February 1965

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Chairman of Committees on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester

CRASH BARRIER AND ANTIDAZZLE SCREEN TESTS
2.36 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the tests on crash barriers and anti-dazzle metal mesh screen netting being carried out on a 9-mile length of the M.1 are now complete; and, if so, what are the results.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lord Lindgren): No, my Lords. Erection of two 9-mile lengths of double steel rail safety fence is almost complete, and we shall shortly be installing a further 9 miles of a new type of cable safety fence being designed by the Road Research Laboratory. These experiments have not yet yielded sufficient information. They are not, however, in any way related to tests of anti-dazzle precautions, which are being carried out on a separate 2-mile length of this motorway.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer.

NURSING STAFFS' ACCOMMODATION
2.38 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have in mind for improving accommodation for nursing staffs in general and mental hospitals.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS and for the COLONIES (Lord Taylor): My Lords, in November, 1964, the Minister of Health published a building note on residential accommodation, giving comprehensive guidance on both the scale and the design of staff accommodation. It is for Regional Boards and hospital management committees to decide how much of the resources available to them should be devoted to this purpose. This is one of the matters Hospital Boards will be considering in the review of the hospital building programme which my right honourable friend will shortly be asking the Boards to undertake. As a general guide to the provision of accommodation, the Ministry of Health expect that up to one-third of the qualified whole-time staff may need to live at or very near the hospital; a higher proportion of students will normally be resident. Precise requirements will vary from place to place.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask whether he is aware that in at least one mental hospital, in Epsom, there is no hostel of any kind for single male nurses and this is accentuating the nursing shortage very seriously? Will he consider extra financial help to Regional Boards to alleviate this very difficult problem?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in saying this is a very difficult problem, particularly because most mental hospitals are located in the country and there is, therefore, no local residential accommodation available. I am quite willing to ask my right honourable friend the Minister of Health to consider the position at Epsom, in consultation with the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state on what basis the number of illegal immigrants is assessed at not less than 10,000 in the last two years.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Stonham): My Lords, the figure mentioned in the noble and learned Viscount's Question relates to Commonwealth citizens who have evaded the immigration control, but they are not necessarily in breach of the law. One of the devices employed is to pose as a person who is entitled under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, to admission for settlement, for example, by claiming to be under 16 years of age and to be the son of a Commonwealth citizen resident here, when the claimant is over 16 and is not so related. It is not always easy to expose a false claim of that kind, especially when supported by a genuine passport, and it is thought that a considerable number have succeeded in gaining admission in this way. In addition, numbers of people admitted for an ostensibly temporary purpose, mainly as visitors and students, have stayed on. Our estimate of the scale on which this is happening is based on a comparison of the net balance of Commonwealth immigration over a given period (that is, the excess of arrivals over departures) with the number deliberately admitted for settlement during the same period. For the two years, 1963 and 1964, the difference between these two figures, in respect of territories other than Canada, Australia and New Zealand, was approximately 10,000.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will the Government not agree that this shocking state of affairs shows that during the last year or two there has been a lack of officials in the immigration department with a knowledge of the Oriental mind?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government certainly do not regard this as a shocking state of affairs; nor would I accept that the immigration officers lack a knowledge of the Oriental mind. But it is rather more difficult to distinguish between a young Asian of, say, 25 years of age and a boy of 16, than it is to distinguish between a man of similar age and a boy of 16 coming from, say, Australia or Canada.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord repeated the statement made recently that the figure was not less than 10,000. That is presumably his estimate of the minimum figure. May
682
not the number be considerably in excess of 10,000? What is the supposed upper limit?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, the actual crude average difference between arrivals and departures for the two years was 10,255.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? While accepting, as I am sure most of us do, that the immigration authorities are doing everything in their power to see that the law is carried out, do not all these difficulties and loopholes (which seem to multiply all the time, quite irrespective of which Minister is in power, much less which immigration officer) really show that there is only one effective way of controlling the numbers of those whom we want to come here and who have a right under the law to do so—that is, to take absolute power to send back to their countries of origin any persons who it is found, after any lapse of time, have entered the country through some illegal loophole?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, the amount of the crude evasion figure is small in comparison with the total number intentionally admitted. I would point out to the noble Earl that on February 4 my right honourable friend announced a number of measures for more effective control, for which power has always existed under the 1962 Act, by imposing conditions of entry; and we are now doing that. When those conditions are not complied with, we shall have power to deal with offenders.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords in reference to the number of immigrants who are here illicitly, my noble friend excluded Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Has he any figures regarding the older Dominions?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords. the corresponding figures for 1963 and 1964 in respect of Canada, Australia and New Zealand are of the order of 15,000 a year. But I would point out to my noble friend that most of these people have No 1ntention of permanent settlement.
LORD REA: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the noble Lord is referring in both answers to members of the Commonwealth? Can he give

683
any indication of the number of illegal immigrants who are not members of the Commonwealth—that is, foreigners.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to aliens?
LORD REA: Yes, my Lords.
LORD STONHAM: The number of aliens admitted for settlement each year is, on average, about 16,000 or 17,000. It is not thought that there can possibly be any similar amount of illegal immigration, because conditions are imposed on the entry of aliens and the power is at hand to see that they are complied with.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, whilst recognising the duty of the Government to take action against those who enter this country illegally, may I ask whether the Government will pay particular concern to two types of immigrant coming into this country: first the women immigrants, whose balancing of the sex proportion in the population is very important for the health of the community; and, secondly, the students, many of whom have to seek a livelihood in order to maintain their studies?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on the first point raised by my noble friend, there is no change in the position. We admit the women dependants of immigrants who have a right to come here, and also those who satisfy the authorities of their position as Common Law wives. On my noble friend's second point, with regard to students, we are now taking what steps we can to satisfy ourselves that they are bona fide students. Once they are here, there is normally no restriction on the length of their stay.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord said that entry had been tightened up since February 4. Can he say how many have been sent back or not admitted since that date?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, figures will not be available until about three weeks after the expiry of one month. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question then, I shall be delighted to answer him.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information
684
he has given. Is he aware that we shall be debating this subject in the near future? I hope that he will make these figures available before that debate.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give any guarantee about that. The debate, I understand, will be on March 10, and it may be something like March 21 before these figures are available for the first month, having regard to the fact that we started under the new arrangement only on February 5. I will, however, endeavour to give the noble Viscount some indication of the differences which now arise under the new arrangements.

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL
2.49 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) whether they accept the principle laid down in Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948 (Cmd. 7662); viz., that "No one may be compelled to belong to an Association"; and

(2) how they reconcile with that principle the introduction of a Trade Disputes Bill which will deprive persons refusing to belong to an association of their remedies at Common Law against those who, in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, threaten breaches of contract in order to deprive them of their livelihood.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lord Lindgren): My Lords, the Government accept the principle laid down in Article 20. The Trade Disputes Bill is not concerned particularly with disputes over union membership but, like earlier trade union legislation, applies to all disputes. The question whether it is right that the protection of the law should extend to disputes over union membership is one which the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and employers' associations will doubtless consider.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him this further question? Do the Government agree that, if this Bill passes into law, a man thereafter treated as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy? If so, is the Government's view this: that it is wrong to force a man to belong to an association, but right to deprive him of his livelihood if he refuses?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, owing to the length of the supplementary question, I am afraid that I missed the first part of it.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I shall be delighted to repeat it. Do the Government agree that, if this Bill passes into law, a man thereafter treated as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy? I will pause there, so that that can be answered before the next part of my question.
LORD LINDGREN: No, my Lords. This Bill will restore the law to what everyone thought it was from 1906 onwards.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, with respect to the Minister, I think that in saying "No" he said almost the opposite of what he meant, because he is saying that a man thereafter treated as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy. Does he agree with that?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Lord is a lawyer. Even lawyers disagree. This case went through three courts, and there were three different decisions.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I really think the Minister is missing the point. What is quite certain is that Mr. Rookes did have a remedy. Surely the Minister knows whether it is, or is not, the intention of the Government that, when this Bill becomes law, any man treated thereafter as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy. Either that is the intention of the Government, or it is not.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the intention of the Government, as I said on the first occasion, is to restore the law to what everyone thought it was from 1906 until the House of Lords judgment. I understand that the House of Lords judgment means that the law was always as we now understand it to
686
be, right the way back to 1906. Equally, would the noble Lord say that it is wrong for professional organisations to make membership of those professional organisations a condition before a man can earn a living with them?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, as the Minister is good enough to ask me a question, I would refer him to my speech on this proposal of the Government before they introduced their Bill, where he will discover what my opinion was. I also pointed out how wrong he is in thinking that the House of Lords decision was contrary to something that everybody had hitherto assumed. But my question to the Government is perfectly simple. Mr. Rookes had a remedy. Is it their intention that, when this Bill becomes law, a person treated as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I suggest that that will be a matter for the courts to decide.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.
LORD LINDGREN: The Government's intention is simply to restore the law to what everyone thought it was from 1906 until the House of Lords decision.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, surely it is ridiculous to say that it is for the courts to decide what the Government's intention is. The question put to the Minister is quite a simple question, and I should have thought that the answer was obvious, and that it was in the affirmative. I would ask the Minister to answer the question that has been put to him.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am not a lawyer, but a simple trade unionist. I thought it was plain that the intention of the Government is simply to restore the law which the House of Lords judgment upset.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are pleased with this Bill? There is no closed shop in it; nor is the Bill outlawing it—although many professional organisations, like that of the noble Lord who asked the Question have had a closed shop for many years.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a person who receives benefits that a trade union negotiates, and does not pay, so far as I am concerned, is repugnant to me? Is the Minister further aware that this Bill only restores what we always thought was our previous position until your Lordships decided otherwise, in the Rookes v. Barnard case, and also gives to the trade union officials the power to mention collective action to the employers without risk of legal action or intimidation? I hope the Bill will pass.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, again, owing to the length of the supplementary question, I am afraid that I missed the point of it. But I am grateful to my noble friend for the respite from the fire.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, for making it clear that he welcomes the Bill, because he is confident that no future Mr. Rookes, after this Bill passes, will have a remedy. The noble Lord is quite right. That is what the Bill does. He has made it clear that that is why he welcomes it, and I thank him for this intervention.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, with the greatest respect, that is an argument and not a question. May I say, too, that the noble Lord is putting half a question? Article 20 also gives the right of freedom of association of membership. I have never noticed the noble Lord enthusiastic in urging bank employers to recognise the National Union of Bank Employees, or the employers who refuse the right of trade union membership to give it.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, is the Minister not of the opinion that this Bill is based on common sense? Is this not preferable to the alternative: that of men who believe that their liberty is being infringed by being required to work with non-unionists walking out in concert without giving the employers any indication as to their reasons?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I agree that this Bill is based upon common sense, and that may be the reason why lawyers cannot understand it.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, is it not the fact that there is nothing in this Bill that deprives a person of taking Common
688
Law action directly against the person uttering the threat, and that, in fact, this Bill is directed to relieving a third party of the responsibility, for reasons of which we are all aware?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, that is as I understand the position.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last question shows that the noble Lord asking it has not read the Bill. It specifically relieves the person uttering the threat.
The MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (Lord Champion): My Lords, may I call the noble Lord's attention to the point that he is not debating this with my noble friend behind me, or ought not to be, on a Question such as this. I rather think that the whole matter is one that we shall have to debate when the Bill is passed through another place and comes here.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Champion will be making a Statement on Sir Roger Casement, and my noble friend Lord Chalfont will be making a Statement on peace-keeping.
I should also like to inform the House that, in view of the unexpected number of Amendments which have been put down to the Commons Registration Bill, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Committee stage should be adjourned at about 7 p.m. this evening, and should be continued on Monday next, March 1. The rest of the Business on the Order Paper will remain unchanged.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Earl of Listowel be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2*.—(Lord Shepherd)
On Question, Bill read 2*, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I must confess to some uncertainty as to the method or approach in making a Second Reading speech on this Bill. As most of the House will appreciate, superannuation matters are always difficult to understand, and they become increasingly more difficult to explain. In spite of the fact that this Bill is of considerable complexity it is, I believe, uncontentious. I am glad to see the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his place, so that I may freely admit that while this Bill is non-conten-tious, it was a Bill that we found waiting for us. It is a Bill that had been prepared by the previous Administration.
I should like to suggest that we leave aside for the moment Clauses 1 to 4, dealing with the Diplomatic Service, and consider the remaining part of the Bill. An Act was required in regard to the Diplomatic Service, so the Government thought it right to use this as an opportunity of dealing with a number of minor but important amendments to existing Statutes and the general code governing superannuation of the Civil Service. I should inform the House that these amendments have been discussed with the representative organisations—the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and the trade unions—and all the provisions have been agreed to.
There are a number of important major matters still outstanding and subject to discussion. I think I should make
690
it clear that the Bill in no way prejudices those discussions or any conclusions that may arise. It in no way affects the general framework of existing schemes; it merely removes or amends in a minor way existing anomalies and adjustments. Perhaps I could give one or two examples. If your Lordships refer to paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 you will see that this validates past and future superannuation awards to certain staff who have always been treated as civil servants but who have now been discovered not to be such. The House will remember that in 1963 we had interesting; debates on the British Museum Bill. For many years it had been assumed that the staff of the British Museum were civil servants, but when the Bill was going through Parliament the Treasury were forced to advise that, in their view, according to law, the staff of the Museum were not in fact civil servants; and the Government of the day thought it necessary to move an Amendment in another place in order to protect the status of the staff.
The House may well ask why this problem arose. It arose because the staff were appointed by the Trustees of the British Museum, and the Trustees are themselves not wholly appointed by or on behalf of the Crown and were not expressly acting on behalf of the Crown. It was felt right that we should in this Bill deal with this situation. But there are a number of other organisations, and they are referred to in paragraph 23 of Schedule 2. There are such organisations as the Imperial War Museum, the National Gallery, the National Maritime Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, the Tate Gallery and many others. The House will also see that the Treasury have power, if it is necessary, to add to this list.
The House may also note a peculiar office called the office of Falkland Macer. I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will know this office, but it was a complete surprise to me and therefore I made some inquiries. The holder of the office is, in fact, a fairly junior official in the Scottish courts, called a bailiff, but is appointed by the hereditary proprietor of the lands of Falkland in Scotland. Since he has not been appointed by the Crown but by a Major Crichton-Stewart it is extremely doubtful whether he is a civil servant. As he is

691
unique in this situation he has been added to the Bill to safeguard his pension. That is one example.
Perhaps I might refer to Clauses 6 and 7. These clauses deal with those who have served in two or more public offices—the technical name for certain fringe bodies not forming part of the Civil Service proper. The principle laid down by Parliament as long ago as 1892 is that continuous and successive service in two or more public offices should be treated for superannuation purposes as if it were service in the Civil Service itself. The main existing rules made by the Treasury to give effect to this principle date from 1911. Since those days, as new concessions have been made, superannuation matters have become more and more complicated. For example, in 1892 unestablished service did not generally speaking, count for superannuation at all, and departure from the Civil Service, other than to a public office, led inevitably to total loss of superannuation rights. Now, unestablished service nearly always reckons on subsequent establishment, and there are a variety of procedures under which an officer can leave the Civil Service with reserved or transferred pension rights. The old rules, however, do not cater for all the possible permutations and combinations: for example, the case where an officer has unestablished service in one public office, followed by established service in another public office, followed by transfer to a public board such as a nationalised industry. Opportunity has therefore been taken to sweep away a number of the old provisions and replace them by an up-to-date code of enabling powers under which the Treasury will make rules based on the principle that, so far as possible, an officer with mixed service in a number of public offices shall be no worse off than if he had rendered the corresponding service entirely within the Civil Service. Those are two illustrations giving, I think, the general character of the main part of the Bill.
I would suggest that if there are any other points in this part of the Bill we might discuss them on Committee stage. If I were to cover all the points to-day, I should be speaking at considerable length.
In regard to Clauses 1 to 4 your Lord-ships will recall that on April 7, 1964,
692
in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, the House gave a warm welcome to the Plowden Report on the Representational Services Overseas. We gave a welcome to the previous Administration's acceptance of the Plowden Report. The Diplomatic Service, which brought together the Foreign Service the Commonwealth Service and the Trade Commissioner Service, did not require legislation. It has now been set up and in fact, came into being on January 1,1965, through an Order in Council. I should like to express the appreciation of this Government to the Plowden Committee and to wish the new Service well.
While legislation was not necessary to set up this new Service, legislation was required in dealing with superannuation and pensions, and Clauses 1 to 4 deal with this matter. Clause 1 allows members of the Diplomatic Service with 20 years' service to resign with preserved pension rights. Like other civil servants, members of the Diplomatic Service who have attained the age of 50 retain the right which they now have to retire or resign at that age, with pension rights reserved for payment at the age of 60, independently of length of service. Moreover, pension rights are preserved automatically on transfer to the Home Civil Service or, with consent, to the various other public services or academic life. These arrangements are now complemented and completed by this further concession which is linked to the particular circumstances of the Diplomatic Service as a career by the provision that eight years out of 20 years' service must be rendered overseas. The provision will, in practice, cover any member of the Diplomatic Service with 20 years' service whose career has followed anything resembling the normal pattern.
Clause 2 deals with a special problem affecting the secretarial staff. The vital importance of their r^ ole I am sure is appreciated by all noble Lords, and I know there will be a recognition of some of the difficulties of secretarial staffs serving in various parts of the world—matters such as climate and amenities—and that the special liabilities of the service may become less attractive to the secretary as the years go by. It should normally be possible to provide for a transfer of the secretary to a fixed post in the Home Civil Service. But this

693
clause provides for a gratuity to be paid if a secretary wishes to leave the Diplomatic Service and cannot be offered a comparable job in the Home Civil Service or refuses such a posting for good compassionate reasons. I hope that this additional element of flexibility will prove of great value in what are often most difficult circumstances.
Clauses 3 and 4 apply to the new Diplomatic Service as a whole the existing provisions for compulsory premature retirement with enhanced pensions which have hitherto applied only to the senior ranks of the old Foreign Service. There is no new principle involved; it is merely a necessary consequence of unification. Special provisions are made which recognise that in the case of junior staff, who though competent are found unsuited for the special conditions of the Diplomatic Service overseas, the best course has often been for them to be transferred to the Home Civil Service and here we do not anticipate any difficulties.
I hope this brief explanation will suffice for giving this Bill a Second Reading. It affects a limited number of people in a limited way, but I think the House will recognise that it is useful and will welcome it none the less. I think that on a previous occasion noble Lords asked what would be the cost of this measure. The cost of the part affecting the Diplomatic Service would rise in a full year from £15,000 to £35,000 a year, and the cost of the other amendments to which I have referred would rise in the course of about ten years from £100,000 to £250,000 a year. These rather small figures perhaps illustrate the modest character of the amendments within the Bill. I hope, with those brief words, that I can commend this Bill to your Lordships and that the House will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, began by referring to the British Museum Bill, which I had to look after in your Lord-ships' House, which took up four or five days of our time, but I can assure the noble Lord I do not intend to retaliate. This is a Bill which we support, and I think the explanation which the
694
noble Lord has given upon it is sufficient. I have no further questions to ask. I understand that my noble friend Lord Inchyra will make a few observations about the Diplomatic Service, which I look forward to hearing. But, so far as I am concerned, I am content that we should now give this Bill a Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be glad to hear that I am not going to ask about the Falkland Macer whom I know, and I am glad to hear his pension is safeguarded.
3.14 p.m.
LORD INCHYRA: My Lords, my only reason for prolonging the discussion on this technical and rather complicated Bill is, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, that to a large extent it is based on the recommendations of the Committee which was presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and of which I had the privilege of being a member. The fact that the Government, and indeed the previous Government, have accepted the Committee's recommendations is naturally a source of considerable satisfaction to us, all the more so since we attached quite considerable importance to these particular recommendations about pensions and retirements and indeed regarded them as one of the basic elements which were fundamental to our whole proposal for the constitution of an intergrated Diplomatic Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made particular reference to Clauses 3 and 4—Clause 3 in particular, which applies to the new Diplomatic Service the same rules for premature retirement as have been applied for the last twenty years, with I think considerable advantage, to the Foreign Service. This is a point to which the Plowden Committee attached rather special importance. They felt that in modern conditions, when the pace of everything is accelerating and when the physical conditions under which people have to work in more and more places is increasingly unpleasant and indeed quite frequently dangerous; when the stresses and strains of responsibility bear increasingly heavily not only on the heads of missions but on a wider range of staff; and above all in these days when, if the Diplomatic Service is to meet the increasing demands put on it, it must be maintained at the highest

695
pitch of efficiency, there really must be some proper, fair system for dealing with those occasional cases of individuals who, although they may have done excellent work in the past and have very many admirable qualities, are not really fit to fill the higher posts in the Service under present conditions and whose retention beyond a certain period is not really in the public interest. Such a system ought to enable persons in this position to be retired, on a pension of course, before the normal retirement age without any feeling of stigma or sense of failure and at an age when they still have a reasonable chance of getting alternative employment.
The 1943 Act applied such a system to the Foreign Service, and Clause 3 of this Bill will apply that to the new Diplomatic Service; and I know I can speak for the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and I believe for the other members of the Committee, in saying that we particularly welcome this decision. Personally, I think it is quite clear that if we are to have an efficient Diplomatic Service and one capable of standing up to modern conditions and dealing with the multifarious problems with which we are now faced, it is quite necessary that some system should be in existence for premature retirement of those who are not fully up to standard for the highest posts. I would hope that the authorities when they implement Clause 3 of this Bill will feel able to do so with reasonable freedom.
As a corollary, I should hope that the authorities will pay some regard to another recommendation of the Plowden Committee in which we suggested that there should be rather less rigidity than heretofore in retiring members of the Service almost the moment they reach the nominal pension age of 60, even though they may then be at the height of their usefulness and in a position to render some more years of valuable service. There will not, of course, be many such cases, and indeed there may not be many individuals who want to go on after the age of 60; equally, it is important not to interfere with the normal flow of promotion. But I should have thought that it would be logical, if, as I hope, the rules for premature retirement are going to be enforced rather more strictly in future, that there should
696
be rather more flexibility about the age at which the really outstanding members of the Service have to retire.
There was another recommendation about superannuation which was made by the Plowden Committee and which is not covered by the Bill, quite naturally I think, because, as I understand it, it deals with a matter not requiring legislative action at all but one capable of being disposed of by administrative action. It is the recommendation where we dealt with the position of non-established locally engaged personnel at our missions abroad. These persons do quite invaluable work, and are of course an integral part of the staffs of our Embassies and High Commissions. They are considerable in number. I think I am right in saying that for the Foreign Office posts alone there are some 4,500, of whom I think about 1,600 are British subjects.
At the moment, except for these persons who are working in North America, there are no arrangements whatever for paying them pensions when they come to retire, quite often after many years' service, sometimes as much as 20 or 30 years. This has always seemed to me unjust and inequitable, and, furthermore, it has the disadvantage of creating rather an unpleasant picture abroad of Her Majesty's Government as a good employer. Furthermore, it tends to inefficiency, because no one is anxious to get rid of someone after many years' service and when he is perhaps rather past his best, if you know that even though he may have served Her Majesty's Government for 40-odd years he is going to get no pension at all at the end of it. And, perhaps worse than that, it is bad for recruitment. It is most discouraging for locally engaged people, local personnel whom one would like to take on to help Embassies and High Commissions, if they are told that at the end of their service they will be turned out merely with a small ex gratia grant.
All this is particularly unfortunate, I think, at the present time, because a large part, perhaps the greater majority, of these locally engaged personnel work in the commercial sections of our Embassies and High Commissions abroad, and are particularly concerned with export promotion work. They are the people on whom we depend for information about

697
local conditions, how markets are developing and whether new British exports are likely to find an outlet; what sort of people should be appointed agents for British firms, and so on. They perform quite essential duties in the day-to-day commercial work of our missions abroad. It seems quite illogical that the authorities at home, at a time when they are urging, and urging quite rightly, our Ambassadors and High Commissioners abroad to step up their activities in the export promotion field, should be making it more difficult—or perhaps it is fairer to say, are doing nothing to make it easier—for our missions abroad to recruit and train the personnel that they require.
The Plowden Committee considered this problem at considerable length, and recommended with as much emphasis as they could that early steps should be taken to introduce a world-wide contributory superannuation scheme to cover all these locally engaged personnel; and also that special steps should be taken to deal with the case of the older, more senior locally engaged personnel for whom any comprehensive scheme might come into effect too late. Of course, we realised when we made that recommendation that the preparation of any such scheme would raise a number of difficulties and take some time. But the matter is really one of quite considerable importance, not only to the individuals concerned, but to the efficient and smooth working of our missions abroad; and also I think to a certain extent it has a bearing on the reputation which Her Majesty's Government have as an employer in the eyes of foreign workers. Therefore, I would greatly hope that, before much longer, some action may be taken along the lines advocated by the Plowden Committee. In that connection I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, saying that this Bill was not to be regarded as the final step.
Now if I may just return to the Bill itself, I feel sure that if it is enacted it will be greatly to the advantage of the new Diplomatic Service, not only to the individual members of the Service but to the Service as a whole. I think it will enable the latter to face the future with more confidence; it will be better geared to stand up to modern conditions, and it will I think, also have a consider-
698
able effect on encouraging recruitment. I hope that the Bill may meet with your Lordships' approval.
3.27 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome that has been given to this Bill, and in particular for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, who was a distinguished member of the Plowden Committee. The two points which he raised have naturally been given considerable thought. In regard to the age limit governing retirement particularly of civil servants, the noble Lord will appreciate that this matter has to be treated on its merits, or on the merits of the individual case. One has to take into account the areas in which the individual has served and also the opportunities that may be available for providing him with employment. As I understand it, the view is now taken that each and every case is treated entirely upon its merits. But there is one other difficulty. I am quite sure that the noble Lord appreciates that one must never, by retaining, shall we say, older and senior members, adversely affect the opportunities for promotion within the middle strata of any Service. This applies not only to the Civil Service, but equally in commercial life. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, that we will look at this question with considerable sympathy, but we must take in a number of different aspects and points.
In regard to the locally engaged staff, here I have a considerable sympathy with what has been said. When I lived overseas in the Far East, I saw the yeoman and stalwart service that local people gave, not only to British employers, but also in the High Commissioners' and Trade Commissioners' offices, and I must say that I often felt that they were not being treated as well as we should have treated them. But in view of what was reported by the Plowden Committee, the recommendation has been accepted and arrangements are now in hand to give effect to it wherever possible by instituting contributory pension schemes within the countries and areas concerned. This does not need to be covered in this Bill since statutory power already exists in Section 5 of the Superannuation Act, 1946, to pay the employers' contributions to such

699
schemes. This matter is being considered and is in hand. I would assure the noble Lord that I will convey the views which he has expressed to the proper quarter, and if anything can be done to speed up the matter, I will do my best in that regard. I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

KENYA REPUBLIC BILL
3.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short and, I hope, non-contentious Bill. It is simpler than a number of predecessors simply because it does not have to deal with appeals to the Queen in Privy Council. It was anticipated when the Constitution of Kenya was being drawn up that Kenya might wish to become a Republic. Therefore, the reference to "the Queen in Privy Council" was not put into the Constitution and, instead, the reference "the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council" was put in. Therefore, no alteration was required in that respect. So, as I have said, it is a short, simple Bill and does things which I am sure we all agree should be done.
On December 12 last year, exactly twelve months after attaining independence, Kenya became a Republic under the Presidency of her former Prime Minister, Mr. Jomo Kenyatta. Before adopting this new constitutional status, Mr. Kenyatta told the British Government and other Commonwealth Governments about the proposed change, and expressed the wish of his Government and the people of Kenya to remain within the Commonwealth. All the Commonwealth Governments readily agreed to Kenya's continuing as a member of the Commonwealth. The Bill now before your Lordships is consequential on Kenya's becoming a Republic while remaining within the Commonwealth. It is purely a technical measure for the purpose of ensuring that Kenya will con-
700
tinue to be treated by British law as a Commonwealth country, even though she no longer has Dominion status. There were other constitutional changes made in Kenya at the same time, and the legislation establishing the Republic dealt with a number of other matters; but they are domestic matters which do not concern the operation of British law in relation to Kenya.
The Bill, as your Lordships may have noticed, is drafted to have retrospective effect from December 12, 1964—that is, from the date when Kenya became a Republic. There would otherwise have been a gap in the operation of our laws in relation to Kenya which might have given rise to difficulties, for example, as regards the law concerning maintenance orders or the enforcement in this country of judgments made in the Kenya courts. This could not have been avoided by bringing the Bill forward at an earlier date since it was necessary to wait until the Commonwealth members had formally concurred in Kenya's continued membership in the Commonwealth. The Bill was introduced in another place at the first possible opportunity after confirmation of their agreement had been received. As I have already said, the Bill is consequential upon Kenya's becoming a Republic, and it follows broadly the provision of similar Acts covering such Commonwealth countries as Ghana, Tanganyika and Nigeria when they adopted republican status.
Clause 1 provides that the operation of the law of the United Kingdom (and, incidentally, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) in relation to Kenya will not be affected by the fact that Kenya is now a Republic. This clause will not apply generally to the law of British dependent territories, but only to Acts of the British Parliament and Orders in Council made under such Acts which extend to such territories. These provisions are made retrospective to December 12. 1964.
Clause 2 gives power to make, by Order in Council, such adaptations to any Act of Parliament as may be necessary as a consequence of Kenya's becoming a Republic. It provides that such Orders may be made so as to have effect again from December 12, 1964. I know that many noble Lords have watched with sympathetic interest developments in Kenya in the few short

701
months since independence. I am sure we have all been encouraged to see the steady progress she has made towards national unity, and increased political and economic stability, under the leadership of President Kenyatta. The achievement is all the greater for having been made at a time of stress when events in the rest of Africa have added to Kenya's own difficulties.
My honourable friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations and the right honourable gentleman Mr. Duncan Sandys attended the Republic celebrations in Nairobi at the invitation of the Kenya Government. They have spoken in another place of the warmth of welcome they received and the friendship towards the British shown on that occasion. It was a further demonstration of this friendship, and a gesture which I am sure was much appreciated here, that Kenya was represented by her Vice-President, Mr. Odinga, at the funeral of Sir Winston Churchill. We, for our part, fully share this friendship and will do everything possible to further it. I am sure your Lordships will agree that in Mr. Malcolm MacDonald we have a High Commissioner who is uniquely qualified by his experience, and the close relations he has already established with all sections of the people in Kenya, to foster the good will and co-operation which exists between our two countries as fellow members of the Commonwealth. I am sure noble Lords will join me in extending to President Kenyatta, to the Government and to the people of Kenya our warm good wishes for their continued peaceful progress and prosperity.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Taylor.)

REMAINS OF ROGER CASEMENT
3.37 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this might be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement which is being made by the Prime Minister in the other place, in answer to a Question about the return to the Irish Republic of the remains of Sir Roger Casement. I think it would be convenient if I were to use the Prime Minister's own words. They are as follows:
702
"Her Majesty's Government have now completed their examination of this matter, and in response to a request from the Government of the Irish Republic have informed them that they are agreeable to authorising the removal to the Republic of the remains of Roger Casement. The Government of the Republic have informed Her Majesty's Government of their decision to reinter the remains in Glasnevin Cemetery, Dublin, and of their intention that they should rest there. Arrangements have been made with the Government of the Republic for the remains to be transferred to Dublin to-day."
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I say how much I welcome this Statement. Whatever one thinks of the later actions of Roger Casement, the services which he rendered in Africa and South America were outstanding for human liberty; and even his later actions were based on patriotism. I am speaking principally because I happened to be in Pentonville Prison on the evening before Roger Casement was executed. I heard a noise outside my cell; I stood on my stool, and there was Roger Casement saying goodbye in the sunset in a very beautiful little garden. One felt almost a spiritual unity with him in those last moments. I am perfectly sure that this decision will be welcomed by the people of Southern Ireland, and I congratulate the Government upon it.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his acceptance and welcome of this step, and for the moving words he has addressed to the House.

KENYA REPUBLIC BILL
3.40 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the Kenya Republic Bill is a technical measure and non-contentious. We all agree with this, and it therefore seems a suitable opportunity to follow him, not in discussing the Bill, which is slight, but to give from these Liberal Benches our warmest good wishes to the people of Kenya. I wonder whether it would be impertinent, also, if one were to wish

703
them good luck—because there are such very great difficulties here, chiefly political. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, drew our attention to what is going on in other parts of Africa: we have only to look at the troubles besetting Nigeria, Ghana and even the Sudan. We have only to look at Kenya itself, where the balance between KANU and KADU is held only by the political genius of Mr. Jomo Kenyatta, to see that political talent of the highest order, and indeed the greatest good luck, are needed to achieve what is to be achieved.
There is very little that we can do so far as the political difficulties are concerned, but there are also economic difficulties; and this is where we can help. I am sure that there is a great deal we can do; and, indeed, a great deal that we are already doing. We are doing our best, through various corporations, to develop public utilities, to establish secondary industries and, above all, to do something for agriculture. Kenya is, after all, a poor country. It does not have any great natural resources, and even if oil were to be discovered, the Northern Territory, where it is now being prospected for, is a disputed territory, a fact which in itself will engender great difficulties. So that in the foreseeable future agriculture is going to be the key to Kenya's health and wealth, and it is with this key that we can help very much.
I know that the people and the Government of Kenya will realise what great difficulties—political and social rather than economic—we have in trying to give this kind of help to them. We, on our side, must try to understand that so far as Kenya is concerned there are very great difficulties in accepting this help. We must try to understand the position as it is seen through the eyes of the people of Kenya, and we must never get exasperated and throw in our hands. So far as Kenya's understanding our difficulties is concerned, I am thinking of problems like that caused by the recent expulsion, possibly unjustly, of technicians; or the possible desire of such Governments that we should put our money into projects which are showy rather than useful—things like that which frighten away capital and frighten away advice, rather than encourage it to come in. On the other hand, I think
704
that we ourselves must try to understand that, from Kenya's point of view, there are certain things which we consider sound but which to them are possibly politically unacceptable; things which may appear to them to be the wrong sort of internal interference. Nevertheless, I am absolutely certain that it is in this economic field, and particularly agriculturally, that we can help them most.
I want also to wish Kenya well in its efforts at greater co-operation with its neighbours. The noble Lord mentioned this point, and I should like to say just one word about it. The efforts of the East African Federation seem temporarily to have collapsed. I think they have collapsed not for the reasons which were suggested in The Times a day or two ago, but rather for personal reasons—the sort of personal reason, if one may say it without offence, that the Kabaka will only accept that he himself should be President of such a Confederation and the others do not want him; the sort of personal reason that Mr. Jomo Kenyatta cannot possibly leave the Presidency of Kenya at a moment like this to take on the Presidency of some Federation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the three Presidents involved are on very friendly terms and are meeting each other frequently, which is greatly to the good.
I want, also, to wish Kenya well as a member of the Commonwealth, whether she follows our foreign policy or not. Since 1947 I think India has set an example in this respect, and it is perfectly possible to be in the Commonwealth and yet to follow a different foreign policy. The same applies to non-alignment vis- á -vis Russia and the West. I do not see that we need to be unhappy if the Kenyan Government in the future wishes to remain non-aligned. I cannot see that this should bother us at all. Our relations with her should not be inhibited even if she has a different foreign policy from us, or even if she is non-aligned.
So I welcome this Bill, as of course we all do, recognising that her change of status within the Commonwealth from a Monarchy to a Republic means no unfriendly feelings towards us at all. I also welcome this opportunity of being able to say again from the Liberal Benches how much we send the people of Kenya our best wishes and wish them good luck.
3.47 p.m.
The Duke of DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Henley, in saying at once that we on this side of the House appreciate that this is a completely non-controversial Bill, and we fully understand the reasons why the people of Kenya wish to cease to be a Monarchy and to become a Republic. We appreciate, also, that this in no way whatsoever shows any disrespect for Her Majesty the Queen, nor does it show any diminution of friendship towards this country. It is easily understandable that republican status is the most acceptable form of Constitution for newly emergent African States, and in this new development they have taken we on this side of the House wish Kenya all good fortune and that she may continue to take the great strides in progress that she has taken in recent years. I think it would also be appropriate to pay a tribute to two people in Kenya; one to President Jomo Kenyatta, and the other to our High Commissioner, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald.
I know my right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys, who had many difficult negotiations to bring to a fruitful end while he was Secretary of State for the Commonwealth, found the Kenya Independence Conference one of the hardest nuts he had to crack. Very often late at night he would come away near to despair, because in those months prior to independence there were these two political Parties, founded on a tribal basis. There was, on the one hand, KANU, and on the other hand there was KADU—KANU favouring strong central Government, and KADU wishing to have far more power in the regions—and for a long time it looked as if it was not possible to find common ground on which those two Parties could meet.
Finally, my right honourable friend more or less forced a Constitution through, and then, since independence, what my right honourable friend in another place has alluded to as "almost a miracle" has taken place. Under the guidance of President Kenyatta, Kenya has been welded into one State, and its grave tribal difficulties have been to a great extent, and certainly at the highest level, entirely forgotten. I know one hears criticisms in some parts of this country of the African tendency to form one-Party Governments. I will only say this to your Lordships. I
706
think we want to be careful before we criticise too strongly, particularly in Kenya, because let us remember that in Kenya KADU has been assimilated into KANU. There is no question of KADU having suppressed KANU.
Independence, and the years immediately following it, posed very grave problems for the countries concerned. When we are faced with a grave crisis, as we were in the two World Wars which have so sadly stricken this century, we do not waste many months in internecine Party warfare but form a Coalition Government to meet the crisis. I am not suggesting that independence poses a crisis on the same scale as a world war, but they have not a large number of people trained as politicians or administrators, and I think it is understandable that they should wish to put aside the luxury of Opposition so that all men who are true patriots may work together for the common good.
Great tribute should be paid to President Kenyatta for the way in which he has welded them into one nation. The other tribute which should be paid is to the High Commissioner, who made the unique change from Governor General to High Commissioner. We are quite certain that his responsibilities could be in no better hands than those of this experienced administrator with his amazing gift for getting on with all sections of the community, however varied they may be, and it gives great comfort to this side of the House that he should be in charge at this time.
I would only add that we on this side of the House wish Kenya well. We wish to continue to be her friend. We are delighted that she will remain a bulwark of the Commonwealth, and to her President and all her people we wish every success. May their prestige grow in Africa, and may their peace and prosperity grow and extend throughout the world!
3.53 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, for the warm way in which they have received this little Bill, and to join them in the thoughts they have expressed about the people of Kenya, about President Kenyatta and

707
about our High Commissioner. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his general observations on the subject of the importance of agricultural development in Kenya.
I would agree most wholeheartedly with the noble Duke about the amazing development under Mr. Kenyatta whereby two Parties have become one, without friction and by a natural process. The change has been brought about entirely by voluntary action, so far as one can see. The Constitution still allows for more Parties than one to exist. The constitutional safeguards were not altered when republican status was introduced, and it may be that over a period of years a two-Party system will emerge; but I agree with the noble Duke that in such a situation there is much to be said for a one-Party system, if indeed it can work harmoniously and happily and make use of all the energy and good will available. I am glad your Lordships have welcomed the Bill in this way, and I hope you will now give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE-KEEPING OPERATIONS
3.55 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Chal-font): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, on the United Nations.
"Now that the United Nations General Assembly has adjourned I wish to assure the House that we, and the vast majority of nations, are determined to do our utmost to see that the United Nations shall emerge from this crisis stronger than before. To this end, the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly have been invited, as a matter of urgency, to undertake appropriate consultations and a decision has been taken to establish a peace-keeping committee. For this outcome, much credit is due to my noble friend Lord Caradon. The Committee is required to undertake as soon as possible a comprehensive review of the whole
708
question of peace-keeping operations in all their aspects, including ways of overcoming the present financial difficulties of the Organisation. It is to submit a report to the General Assembly not later than the 15th of June. The Assembly has adjourned until the 1st of September unless it proves necessary to reconvene it earlier in the light of the Committee's report. A single vote necessary to reach this situation and postponing the Article 19 issue, was taken without prejudice to conflicting views.
"This country intends to play a leading part in the peace-keeping committee and we intend to bring to it new ideas worked out in consultation with experts on United Nations' affairs. Further, as an earnest of our intention, we shall make the following offer of support to United Nations peace-keeping. If so requested, and subject to our national commitments, we will help to provide logistic backing for a United Nations force of up to six infantry battalions. This could include, for example, short-range aircraft, engineering and signal troops, and ambulance, ordnance and motor transport units. If it were desirable, suitable units of these categories would be earmarked for use as available. Her Majesty's Government also hope to take a share in providing long-range aircraft for the transport of peace-keeping forces. The financing of this offer would depend on the arrangements prevailing at the time.
"Great Powers are and should be closely concerned with United Nations problems. But they are not alone; the United Nations must develop as a result of discussions and agreement among all its members, great and small. Small nations have played a great part in the United Nations itself; and it is to their interest and that of the United Nations that they should continue to do so. With this in mind the 18th Session of the General Assembly passed resolutions expanding the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. This involves Charter amendments, which Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify.
"It is one thing to keep the peace; another to settle the problems which

709
threaten peace. A number of experts are considering the process of settling disputes by conciliation, mediation, arbitration and other methods. After examining their recommendations we shall expect to make positive suggestions.
"The Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and many other organs of the United Nations can continue their work despite the Assembly's adjournment. Disarmament negotiations can continue; the United Nations Trade and Development Board can go to work; so can the Human Rights Commission in which Her Majesty's Government have a keen and continuing interest. We shall continue to work in all these fields. We have announced our increased contribution to Technical Assistance and the Special Fund.
"Great difficulties remain. But we are determined that solutions must be found; the United Nations must be enabled to fulfil its task of keeping the peace and improving the conditions of human life."
3.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the long Statement that he has communicated to us, I propose to reserve comment upon it until I have given full consideration to its content. It would appear to have some very far-reaching implications which will have to be considered. There are just one or two matters which perhaps the noble Lord might clarify. In his reference to the peace-keeping committee he said that one of its tasks would be to consider ways of overcoming the present financial difficulties of the Organisation. By that does he mean the question of contributions for past peace-keeping operations? Then, my Lords, he referred to the offer which we have made to commit six infantry battalions, aircraft, engineering and signals troops to provide logistic backing for a United Nations peace-keeping force. Has any other country made any similar offer? Is this not something quite independent of the constitution of the peace-keeping committee, and is it the case that the finance required is left open? I think that is so.
710
The noble Lord referred also to resolutions which have been passed expanding the Security Council, and said that they involved Charter amendments which Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify. Would the noble Lord, in some form—either in a White Paper or in Hansard—make available to this House the Charter amendments which are envisaged, so that we may see them and consider them? Then in the peroration of the Statement the noble Lord said that great difficulties remained. By that, did he mean the difficulty of securing contributions from other countries for peace-keeping operations, or had he anything else in mind?
4.1 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I, from these Benches, welcome this Statement? I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that it is, of course, a rather full Statement that needs a lot of digestion before we can go into it in profitable detail. It is, to me, rather a sad and bitter reflection that this great organisation, founded so many years ago, should need to establish a peace-keeping committee, when surely it was itself conceived as a peace-keeping committee. However, we have come to that, and it cannot be helped.
There is just one small point which perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to explain, if he can. I interpreted our support of this force differently from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I take it that the figures of the force mentioned by the noble Lord relate to the total force which we were intending to support but not to produce ourselves. Perhaps he could amplify that. A second point strikes me—that we may be called upon to use our forces within this force. I think we must keep in mind very clearly that, while no doubt we should be most willing to obey orders, instructions or requests from the Security Council, we should want a little further discussion and thought before we took an instruction of that sort from the Assembly.
There is just one small point. If I may refer to a speech made by my noble friend Lord Ogmore in this House in, I think it was, January of last year, be pointed out how very necessary it was to have a permanent staff or a permanent command structure, not merely an ad hoc body which might or might not be called upon

711
to deal with this or that situation. I would urge Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind that this should be a permanent body, a permanent staff, a permanent structure, which I am sure would have support in many quarters in this country.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government realise that the length of this Statement will make it necessary for it to be examined at some length, and I hope, therefore, that we can leave detailed discussion of it until a later date. However, with regard to the points which have been raised by the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Lord, I think that I must first of all make it clear that the support which Her Majesty's Government propose to make available to the United Nations peacekeeping activities is logistic backing for a force of up to six infantry battalions—not the six infantry battalions, but simply the logistic (that is to say, the administrative) backing to keep a force of that sort in the field.
LORD OGMORE: Not British battalions, presumably?
LORD CHALFONT: Not necessarily British battalions. There is No 1ntention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to contribute infantry battalions to this force, but simply the administrative and logistic backing for any United Nations force of that sort which may be put into the field.
So far as the finance for this logistic backing is concerned, that will, as I think was made clear in the Statement, depend upon the conditions prevailing at the time. There is no evidence at the moment of any other country making such a force available, or making such an offer. This is an earnest indication of Her Majesty's Government's support for the ideals and activities of the United Nations. We should, of course, expect to be responsible for the financial support of these forces in the normal course of events, while they were a part of the British Armed Forces. We might expect that there would be other arrangements made for financing them if they were actually engaged in United Nations operations. But, in fact, the whole business of the financing of
712
United Nations operations, as I think was made clear in the Statement, will be included in the comprehensive review which will be carried out by the committee of the whole question of peace-keeping operations. This will involve the whole spectrum of the problem of providing financial support for these operations.
So far as the question of Charter amendments is concerned, Her Majesty's Government will take note of the request of the noble and learned Viscount, and we shall make such information as we have available. With regard, finally, to the question of a permanent command structure, that, of course, is one of the possibilities which the various expert advisers at present available to Her Majesty's Government are looking at. We realise that this is a very valid and a wise suggestion; we shall be looking into it. But, for the moment, our only specific proposal is for the provision of this administrative and logistic backing for a force of up to six battalions.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, with regard to these Charter amendments on which we hope to get information, have we already agreed to these amendments, or are they now under discussion?
LORD CHALFONT: The 18th Session of the General Assembly passed these resolutions in which they expanded the Security Council. This involved Charter amendments. The resolution was passed in the General Assembly, and Her Majesty's Government intend now to ratify that resolution.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: So there can be no difficulty about making information about the amendments which will have to be made to the Charter available to this House without delay?
LORD CHALFONT: So far as I am aware, my Lords, there will be no difficulty about that whatsoever.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, as one who has given very strong and consistent support to the United Nations and to the idea of equipping it with a peace force—it is very difficult to follow the details of the long Statement the Minister has made—may I say to him that the active part that Her Majesty's Government have taken in this wide-ranging initiative at the United Nations will give

713
considerable satisfaction to wide sections of the public?
LORD CHALFONT: I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I believe, as he obviously does, that a great deal of praise and of gratitude is due in this matter to Lord Caradon for his splendid efforts in New York.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, with reference to the logistic support referred to by the noble Lord in the Statement he has just read, surely this is precisely what we are now doing in Cyprus?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this is not exactly what we are doing in Cyprus. We have, of course, in the past provided considerably more than logistic support in Cyprus, and this was support provided partly, as noble Lords will remember, from forces in Cyprus, partly from forces in the United Kingdom. The intention behind the present proposal is that certain specific logistic units shall be made available and shall, as the Statement says, possibly be earmarked for operations when any United Nations force is put in the field. The Cyprus operation was very largely an ad hoc operation, and the major part we played in it was very largely due to the fact that we had a military presence in Cyprus at the time. This is to be a standing commitment which we are now offering to the United Nations.
LORD AMPTHILL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

COMMONS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
4.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Ailwyn in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Registration of commons and town or village greens and ownership of and rights over them
1.—(1) There shall be registered, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and subject to the exceptions mentioned therein,—
(a) land in England and Wales which is common land or a town or village green;
and no rights of common over land which is capable of being registered under this Act shall be registered under the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936.
(2) After the end of such period, not being less than three years from the commencement of this Act, as the Minister may by order determine—

(a) no land capable of being registered under this Act shall be deemed to be common land or a town or village green unless it is so registered; and

(b) no rights of common shall be exercisable over any such land unless they are registered either under this Act or under the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936.

LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in subsection (1), to insert as a new paragraph after paragraph (6):
"() the property, with acreage, to which it is claimed such rights attach"
The noble Lord said: As is well known in the case of commons, the land of the common is usually owned by an individual, frequently the Lord of the manor, and various persons have common rights over the land, whether of pasturage or of cutting timber or turf. In many cases that right attaches to the ownership of land usually in the vicinity of the common land; and whoever acquires that land acquires the rights of common over the common.
In this Clause 1t is provided that land which is common land or a town or village green and the rights over that land should be registered; and it appears extremely desirable that there should be registered not only those rights but also the land to which the rights attach. Indeed, it is difficult to see how it is possible to register the rights if, at the same time, there is no registration of the properties to which the rights attach. I think that this is in line with what was referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in his winding-up speech during the Second Reading debate, when he was speaking about the possible need for widening the powers of making regulations and said:
"We are not quite certain … that we have provided for that being indicated,"
He was referring to his earlier statement that:
"There may be questions of registering ownership of what I suppose one would call

715
dominant land—that is to say, land to which these rights of common appertain."—[Official Report, Vol. 263 (No. 36), col. 116, February 9, 1965.]
It is in order to cover these registrations that I move this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("lands") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to support the noble Lord who has just moved this Amendment in what he says. It is very true, in relation to these rights, that they must attach to land; and, normally speaking, there will not be any difficulty about that. Everybody knows that one of the objects of the Report of the Royal Commission and of this Bill is to obtain clarification. This is undoubtedly one of the areas where clarification is required. Many of the rights claimed are very vague, and the land in respect of which they are claimed is often vaguely defined, too.
Though I do not say it takes place very often, or that it could do so, there is room for a certain amount of rather sharp manoeuvring in relation to these matters. Later on in this Bill we have provision—I think it is in Clause 14—relating to quantification of these common rights particularly in regard to grazing. It may easily be that the actual statement as to the area of the land which claims to have these rights of grazing will throw a good deal of light on the quantification of the grazing rights themselves, and it would be of the greatest help, I suggest, in dealing with the problem of quantification to have the actual area of the land in respect of which the common rights are claimed registered to show that there really will not be room for this type of rather sharp manœuvring. Therefore I support the noble Lord in this Amendment.
The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of LAND and NATURAL RESOURCES (Lord Mitchison): I think that the objects of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment and of the noble Lord who has just spoken in support are also those of the Government in this matter. I am afraid I cannot quite accept the Amendment in this form, for a reason that I will explain. The Committee will see that there are certain things which
716
must compulsorily be registered, and in subsection (2) there follows a consequence if they are not registered: they lapse. We propose that this dominant land, if I may take that phrase, should be noted in the register, but not that it should be one of the things that must be registered. It is rather unsuitable for the purpose for other reasons, in that sometimes it requires a great deal of definition.
What I propose to put into the register will be a description and a postal address of the holding and a list of the ordnance survey parcel numbers and relevant acreage. The Amendment I had in mind and which now appears on the Marshalled List is an Amendment enabling us to call for a map where further definition is necessary. I hope the noble Lord will take it from me that, having listened to what he has said and to what my noble friend has said in support, I am quite sure that the peril he has in mind will be sufficiently met, and will be met in the form of a regulation dealing with what should be included in the register.
I should like to take this opportunity—and I hope I am not transgressing the rules of procedure too much—to say a general word or two about the Amendments on the Marshalled List. There are not many that I can accept in their present form, but that is hardly the point. This is a Bill on which I believe there is no substantial difference of opinion. I think, with some minor conflicts of interest, we are all agreed on the main purpose of the Bill, and we all consider it necessary that it should be brought into operation as soon as possible. So what I propose to do, subject to the Committee's wishes in the matter, is this. When we come to Amendments where there is really any question of doubt, though I cannot give any undertaking that we shall accept it, I will ask that the Committee take it from me that I will look again into the matter. Then if the Amendment is put down again on the Report stage or, if the Amendment be put down on behalf of the Government on the Report stage, we can revert to a more detailed discussion.
This is an extremely difficult Bill in minor and sometimes rather tedious respects, and we have given it a great deal of consideration. Quite exceptional trouble has been taken over it by those

717
who have been advising me in the matter, and I think we now have it right. However, since even the wisest may sometimes err we should like the opportunity to look at a number of points again. I have said this with the object of shortening the time of the Committee, and I would ask the noble Lord who moved the Amendment whether he can see his way to withdraw it, in view of the pretty clear indication I have given of the Government's intentions in the matter, and also in view of the practical difficulties of the Amendment in its present form. If, in this or in any other case, the noble Lord (and I know him to be a most responsible person) says to me "I will withdraw it; but I should like an undertaking that it be looked at again", then I will give that undertaking. In the best judgment I can give of the matter, this particular Amendment is not a case where a further look is needed; but if the noble Lord calls on me to look at it again I will gladly do so.
LORD MOLSON: I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said, and for the spirit in which he has indicated he is going to conduct the Committee stage. There is no doubt that the Bill is difficult to understand and amend. This is of such a singular degree of complexity that it is almost impossible for noble Lords, without the assistance of Parliamentary Counsel, to amend these matters. I should also like to say how grateful I am to the Parliamentary Secretary for the way he has communicated with me and helped me about one or two matters. I am afraid that our discussions on this Bill may take a little time, but we will try to reduce them to a minimum. Having said that, I naturally accept the noble Lord's assurance and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.21 p.m.
Earl FERRERSmoved, in subsection (2), to leave out "less" and insert "more". The noble Earl said: I rise to move the Amendment in my name on the Order Paper, at page 1, line 15. I always find it rather alarming to see on the Paper an Amendment to leave out one adjective and replace it with another diametrically opposite to it, but in fact this Amendment is not quite so devastating as it may appear on the face
718
of it. It may be to your Lordships' convenience, if I relate this Amendment to No. 19, which has not quite the same wording, but is similar in content.
The Amendment refers to registers of common land and those who have claims on this land. Subsection (2) says that
"After the end of such period, not being less than three years from the commencement of this Act, …"
and so on. That means that the registers will close in not less than three years. But it could mean three years, five years, ten years or twenty years after the commencement of the Act. I understand from the general tenor of the speech of the noble Lord opposite on Second Reading, that it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government to cut down the period suggested by the Royal Commission. If we were to adopt the words which I suggest, it would mean that the registers would be closed three years after the date on which the Act came into operation. This would give the Act a sense of urgency. Whereas, if it is left as it is, there is the possibility that it will merely give the Minister power to effect the registrations without any obligation to do so. The Minister, quite rightly, because of the need to prepare the necessary regulations, has to retain power under Clause 24 to state when the Act should come into force. I think that that is perfectly fair, but I wonder whether it is desirable that he should also retain the power to extend the registration period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out "less" and insert "more".—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD MITCHISON: I hope that your Lordships will not think I am being anything but quite sincere when I say that I accept the spirit which moved the noble Earl to put down and move this Amendment, but I do not think that there is any need for it. We intend, if we can, to keep the registration period to three years. This is a considerable reduction, for the reasons which I tried to explain in my Second Reading speech, upon the period proposed by the Royal Commission; and we think that is right. But when it comes to carrying out these rather complicated operations, I suggest that we must trust the Minister in charge a little. After all, the Government have

719
introduced this Bill when there are a good many other measures pending, and we have patted ourselves on the back, I hope fairly tactfully. I can assure the noble Earl that we do not intend to delay. We think that anything less than three years would be too short. It is a question of holding the balance between various interests. We do not intend to go beyond the three years unless we are obliged to do so; but in a matter of this sort one cannot say for certain that something or other may not turn up to make some small delay inevitable. Although I have often said the opposite from the Opposition Benches in another place, I think that this is a case where we must trust the Minister in charge, who has shown a certain good will on this point, to make his own timetable having regard to three years as a mimimum. We have to try to achieve a balance between speed, which we always want, so far as possible, and doing things so fast that some people do not have time to keep up.
The noble Earl may remember that in practice the three years is divided into two parts—eighteen months during which there is no charge and during which we hope to get the majority of claims in; and a further eighteen months' period during which there will be a small charge, which we hope will bring in the laggards, although in many cases the laggards may be laggards for good reasons. I really think that three years is the practicable minimum. I hope that on that assurance of good will, quite a genuine one, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment. This has been considered in considerable detail from various points of view. Again, as on every other Amendment, I will look at it again, if the noble Earl wishes me to do so, but I cannot undertake to do anything. I think that it is unlikely that this proposal would be accepted.
LORD CHORLEY: Before the noble Earl indicates his acceptance or refusal of the Minister's offer, as we are at this point discussing the question of the period for claims, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a few remarks about this matter. As the Minister has indicated, the Royal Commission, although they advised a minimum of three years, stated that in their view a rather longer period might be required. I am inclined to agree with the Government's decision to fix, in
720
the regulations, a period of three years. But, as I said on Second Reading, there is undoubtedly a real danger here. In the amenities movement we have found over the last years, that many local authorities who have been burdened (I do not know whether that is quite the right word) with these matters are keen and enthusiastic about such duties as registering rights of way and footpaths, and they get on with the job. But in some parts of the country we found that local authorities were far from keen or enthusiastic, and sometimes, it seemed to us, were deliberately holding their hands in these matters. How far that is true, it is difficult to say, but that is certainly the impression which we in the amenities movement have.
I understand that here the main burden is to fall upon the local authorities. It may well be that at the end of three years there may be a great many commons and commons rights which have not been registered and, therefore, will be lost for ever, unless some sort of provision is made in the regulations to be made by the Minister giving him a discretion, in proper cases, to extend the period. I am not at all sure that this is right, but a suggestion has been made to me upon which I should be glad to have the Minister's view, either now or at some later stage; and I am perhaps taking him a little by surprise, as I have only recently had an opportunity of considering this point. In the clause which deals with regulations, Clause 18, subsection (3) says:
"The regulations may prescribe the payment of a fee not exceeding five pounds on an application made after the end of such period as may be specified in the regulations."
This in effect suggests that there is somewhere to be a delay clause, so to speak. If that is the intention (and it is difficult to understand why this provision should be in the clause unless at some stage or another in the drafting there was the intention specifically to give to the Minister discretionary power of this kind) it should be stated there. That paragraph seems to me to suggest that the draftsman had at some stage or other thought that there should be some discretion of this kind.
But whether the draftsman thought that or not, I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be wise that the Minister should, in drawing up his regulations, provide a discretion. It is a very common thing indeed, as those of your

721
Lordships who have practised in the law will be aware, that in these cases where limitation periods are prescribed, whether for appealing from one court to another, exercising some right under an Act of Parliament or otherwise, the court which deals with the matter is given a discretion, in a proper case, to extend the period. All sorts of things can go wrong, even if the local authority is a keen one. Three years is quite a short period; it is astonishing how rapidly three years runs by. In all these businesses, those of us who are in the law know well that longer periods than three years very often run out before busy men concerned with these things appreciate what is happening.
For this reason, it is valuable to give a discretion to the Minister, which can be done quite easily. It is only a matter of enabling himself in a proper case to exercise a discretion. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell me whether he thinks Clause 18 (3) does provide for some sort of discretion of this kind, and, in any event, whether he will discuss with his right honourable friend the desirability of dealing with this matter in the regulations and providing some sort of escape clause, which I am sure everyone who has given attention to this subject will think eminently desirable.
LORD MITCHISON: Perhaps my noble friend has gone some way from the actual Amendment which we are now discussing; and I think he indicated this himself. But I can tell him, as indeed I told your Lordships on Second Reading, what the purpose of fixing the fee of £5 is. The intention is that there should be two periods of registration, each of one and a half years, following each upon the other, and each of them followed by a period for objections; and the hope is that the first period should collect most of the claims. It is to encourage people to claim at once that there is no fee in the first period; and the reference in Clause 18 to the fee of £5 is in respect of applications made during the second period. There is no provision in the Bill, either in the regulation-making power or anywhere else, to enable the Minister to extend the period he fixes for registration.
I find myself standing on the other leg this time. This is not a power that
722
I think, in the circumstances of this case, one ought to give to the Minister. It is perfectly true that it is given in some cases; but, equally, it is not given in others. In the ordinary Statutes of Limitation, for instance, there is no such provision. We have to try to hit the right period and make certain that it is not so short that anybody can fail to assert his rights by mere inadvertence or merely by being too slow in whatever preparations he may have to make. That is one side of the picture. On the other hand, one has to remember that if the registered rights are not asserted within the prescribed time, then they lapse. Therefore, if you give power to extend the period, you have a state of uncertainty at the end of the period when you really do not know whether the rights, supposing there to be any, still exist or do not exist. I think when you are legislating to the effect that, failing registration, certain rights should lapse, people are entitled to have a time fixed at the beginning of the period during which they must register, and there ought not to be any extension of it.
I say that to my noble friend. My reply, as were perhaps some of his questions, is a bit wider than the Amendment. If he would agree to put down a suitable Amendment on Report, we would, of course, consider it with the additional care with which one considers any proposals made by noble Lords who have long been conspicuous for their activities to safeguard the amenities of the countryside. But, for the moment, my definite feeling is that I ought not to have refused this Amendment, as I have, had I been willing to accept what was put forward by my noble friend.
I stand corrected: there is power to extend in Clause 19 (1); I had forgotten that. At any rate, I feel rather doubtful whether it should be used in a case of this sort. Perhaps the least said the soonest mended, and I had better invite the noble Lord, if he would be so good, to withdraw the Amendment or tell me that he would like me to look at it again.
LORD CHORLEY: As the Minister has, to a large extent, been replying to me, may I say another word and ask him whether he will look at this a little more closely in the interval? He suggested that I, or somebody, should put down an

723
Amendment on the next stage which would enable us to discuss at greater length the proposal I am making for giving the Minister discretion to extend the time. I was not at all clear what he meant by saying that there was some power under Clause 19. I should have doubted whether that was so. But Clause 19, I think, shows that the regulations can be amended from time to time. It seems to me most undesirable that an Act of Parliament should begin to go into details as to what regulations are to contain, which, in effect, the Minister is asking us to do by means of the Amendment which he is suggesting we should put down. It is, I think, much better to get a ministerial undertaking that he will look at problems of this sort when the regulations are being drafted, because it is possible to do things in regulations which are very inappropriate in an Act of Parliament. Much more elasticity is possible in regulations, and I should have thought it better to do it in that way rather than by means of statutory directions to the Minister when drawing up his regulations that he is to do this or that, because it removes the discretion which it is important that he should have.
LORD MITCHISON: May I be spared a moment? The reference in Clause 19 must be to subsection (1), that an order—and this is done by order—may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order. It is a little different from the kind of thing I had in mind, and I think a little different from what my noble friend had in mind. That is the only possible reference that I can see in Clause 19, and I regard that as a power which one would have to be very careful about exercising in relation to any individual case. It is not, I think, really intended for that purpose. Therefore I am not as much corrected as I thought I was.
I can assure my noble friend that we will consider what he has said, but I doubt whether anything in the Bill, certainly as regards the regulation-making powers, really gives a power to extend in the sort of case he had in mind—that is, the case of somebody exceptionally late for some good reason. But we will certainly consider it and see whether anything can be done. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider, in his turn, putting
724
down an Amendment on the Report stage to indicate quite clearly what it is he requires.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has certainly taken us into rather deeper waters than my modest little Amendment had anticipated. They evidently befouled the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, although he succeeded in extricating himself, and I do not intend putting my feet in them as well. All I would say is that the object of my Amendment is simply to ensure that this Bill, once it becomes law, is proceeded with; and if the noble Lord gives the assurance, which he has done, that the Government really mean to get on with it and bring it into operation, then that suits my case, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.43 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "or under the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936." The noble Lord said: I mentioned before that I have been helped in preparing these Amendments by correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary, and as our relations in the matter of this Bill are so amicable I am sure he will not object to my quoting from the correspondence, in order to sec whether this Amendment is not, in fact, exactly in line with the Government's intentions. It is the case that, whereas land in certain parts of the country has to be registered under the Land Registration Act, 1925, Section 70 defines rights of common as an overriding interest, and therefore they bind the land without any necessity for registration. It appears to me extremely desirable that as much information as possible in connection with commons should be found upon the registers created under this Bill.
When I was corresponding with the noble Lord, he wrote to me that, with regard to title of land registered at the Land Registry, common rights may be, but need not be, registered under the Bill. There is no prohibition of double registration of rights in the Bill. It is intended to encourage it so as to get as many rights as possible on the new register. It appears to me that if one were to require that rights of common

725
should be registered under this Bill if they are not to lapse when the registers cease to be provisional, one would be giving effect to the Government's indication as made known to me; and in the view of the Commons Preservation Society it is extremely desirable that all common rights should be registered on these registers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("or under the Registration Acts, 1925 and 1936")—(Lord Molson.)
LORD HURCOMB: May I support my noble friend's Amendment, on the same grounds as apply to many others of his Amendments which I also support. This Bill is of great interest, not only to the amenity societies but to all the conservation societies, and to those who use the commons and look towards using the commons for recreation. It seems to me most important that its provisions should be intelligible, and that it should not be necessary to have to dive about among many registers to find out what common rights are.
In this Bill especially (and I think it applies also to a great many other Bills directed to the conservation of nature or the preservation of amenities) the provisions should be intelligible, and the machinery should be not too difficult to administer or to enforce. For those reasons, it seems to me that this Amendment has a great deal to be said for it.
May I say that the societies to which I have referred are grateful to Her Majesty's Government for having brought this Bill forward at this time. I believe it is true that the hen laid the egg while she was still in the custody of a previous Administration. But the credit must go to those who put the egg into the incubator and hatched it out, otherwise some years might have elapsed before even this preliminary step was taken. Therefore, we are grateful for the Bill. Nevertheless, we should like to see it as comprehensive as possible, intelligible to the genera] public, in spite of the complexities of the subject, and readily administrate and enforceable. I am very grateful also to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for what he said about his attitude to all these Amendments. He said that he will not reject them, or merely use some formula that he will consider them, without really giving them
726
his earnest consideration, and seeing whether, perhaps at some later stage of the Bill, he cannot himself meet the points of view which they express.
LORD MITCHISON: I am grateful to the noble Lords who have brought this point forward. It raises a rather difficult question about the Land Registry. The point is that people who register a title to land, and may, as in this case, register some other matter relating to the land, too, are seeking a definite title—something which is, if I may use a rather clumsy phrase, guaranteed by the State. That is the broad object of the Land Registry. The trouble about this Amendment is that its effect would be that rights of common which have been registered at the Land Registry would lapse at the end of the commons registration period, if they are not also registered in the commons register.
I said earlier in answering the noble Lord whose Amendment this is, that we wanted all common rights to be put into the commons registry too; and that is indeed our wish. But that is not a reason for threatening people who have registered with the Land Registry with a deprivation of title under the Land Registration Acts if they fail also to register under this Bill. For that reason I cannot accept the Amendment. But, if I can give the noble Lord some consolation, I understand that there are very few common rights registered at the Land Registry. That should not prevent fairness from being shown to people who have so registered such rights, but one consequence would be that if one wanted to find out about them an extensive search would have to be made, with very little practical result. For these reasons I think that the right course is to preserve the Land Registry entry, with all its consequences in respect of common rights, and not to invite a whittling away of them by legislation in this Bill, which as I have said, has a quite different purpose. I cannot see what real injustice is being done here in the terms of the Bill, and I cannot see that this Amendment (I say this with all respect to noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it) would be very helpful to anybody. I must repeat that I cannot think it would be fair to those who have registered common rights, a

727
few people perhaps, who have registered their rights at the Land Registry, and for that reason I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment; but I repeat my usual offer.
4.52 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: There is one important point I want to make in reply to the Parliamentary Secretary, and then I should like, if your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, to raise a general question which will come up on one or two of the later Amendments and to which the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government might be willing to give a little further thought. The main point is that the Land Register under the Act of 1925 is not available for the general public to see. Only in very restricted cases can an individual go and see what the rights are, and it is, of course, one of the main purposes of the register set up under this Bill that the public should know what their rights are. Therefore it does not in any way meet our point (indeed, I thought it was the Government's own point) that we wanted to have all these rights registered in a way accessible to the public, to say that a number of them should have been registered under the Land Registration Act, 1925; because such registrations are not open to inspection by the public.
May I, in a few sentences, put to the Government the difficulty which we feel because of the existence of the Land Registry as a register of titles to land at the same time as this new register of rights in and connected with commons is being created. The Government have put the point to me that it is extremely undesirable to have two systems of registration at the present time. They say that the registers might differ, which would create complications, or they might say the same thing. But, as I have pointed out, if what is entered in these new registers is the same as is entered in the Land Register it then becomes available to the public. But I would ask the Government to consider whether it would not be possible to introduce some machinery by which what is contained in the Land Register can be put into the registers set up under this Bill. I repeat again that only then will they be available to the public.
728
But it is also extremely important—and we thought it was one of the purposes of this Bill—that all the rights in connection with commons should be registered in the same place.
LORD MITCHISON: I am very glad that the noble Lord has raised the more general point. I stated my objection to this particular Amendment, and I think it is the more general matter that he has in mind. What we want to avoid is not necessarily two systems of registration but two systems of registration each of which has some element of the conclusive in it. When one comes to look at the provisions of this Bill there is nothing conclusive whatever about the registration of ownership; it does not give anybody a title. It is really information that has to be included in the register. Indeed, in one instance there is provision for action by the local authorities if the ownership is not registered. But it does not give anyone a separate title.
The difficulty—I was going to say the impossibility—of having two land registration systems side by side covering the same thing is, I think, quite obvious. The Land Registry, after all, was set up to determine questions of title, conclusive title, possessory title, whatever it was—I think those are the three categories used. There entries are made after very careful formal proof, as the noble Lord will know: they are conclusive, and they are also confidential. The Land Registry will reply at once if asked whether a given piece of land is on their register or whether it is not. They will not, as the noble Lord rightly indicated, give any more information about it. What we want is to get the fullest possible information as to what we are concerned with here, which is not the Land Register at all but the commons registers, the registers which are to be kept by the registration authorities under this Bill.
On this matter I can give the noble Lord quite a good deal of encouragement. We do propose to see the Land Registry again at a later stage (of course they have been seen already) to see whether arrangements can be made for getting any information on their register put on to the commons registers. I cannot give any definite undertaking, since this does not seem to me a question which arises at this stage. It will arise at the end of the

729
period when the registers are completed and one is contemplating taking action and preparing what somebody called second-stage legislation; indeed, what we should do about the commons when we know who owns them and the rest of it. That is the moment when one will have to consider what, if any, use for public purposes, and in public, should be made of entries which are at present in the Land Register on the basis of being confidential and proving a proper title of one kind or another, after full investigation. I wonder whether the noble Lord will take it from me that we have had in mind to discuss this matter further with the Land Registry, not with the object of making any amendment of this Bill but with the object, when the facts are better known, of seeing if there is any information in their possession which ought to go on to the commons registers.
I hope that nothing I have said will encourage anybody who has commons rights on the Land Register not also to register them on the commons register. They cannot count on our taking anything from the Land Register and putting it on the commons register. That point we are going to consider. In their own interests they would be wise not to try to be too clever about what goes on to the commons register, but if in doubt to register, and, as I think I said on Second Reading, with no particular intention of benefiting the legal profession, certainly to consult a solicitor.
LORD CHORLEY: Before we leave this clause, I noticed that my noble and learned friend who is in charge of this Bill, in the course of his argument pointed out that these rights registered under the present Registration Acts, if they did not get on to the commons register, would have lapsed at the end of three years. This seems to me to be a good reason why the Minister should have some discretion for extending the period in proper cases.
LORD MOLSON: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's sympathetic reply to the substance of my argument, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MOLSON: I apologise, but again I think that it is important that at this early stage we should understand exactly how Clause 1 is intended to operate. I have a feeling that the machinery as set up under this Bill will not be entirely satisfactory without amendment. But there is one thing of which I feel absolutely certain—namely, that there will have to be a clear explanation, both to the Legislature and also to the public, as to the meaning of the words in this Bill.
I can never remember reading a Bill where the wording seemed to be more divergent from the explanation which has been vouchsafed by the Government. This clause provides that
"There shall be registered …

(a) land in England or Wales which is common land or a town or village green;

(b) rights of common over such land; and

(c) the ownership of such land."

I thought that registration of the ownership of the land meant registering the title to that land—who was in fact the owner of the land. That, however, is not the case. I read, from the explanation that has been vouchsafed to me:
"It cannot be too strongly, or too often, emphasised that the Bill does not set up a system of registration of title to common land."
To underline the difference, the Bill uses the expression "registration of ownership". How is it possible for the ownership of common land to be registered without the register stating who is entitled to it? That is precisly and exactly what, because of some later Amendments of mine, I have been warned that I must understand.
There are apparently three things which we must try to keep clear. The first is status; the second is ownership, and the third is title. I do not know how one can register the ownership of land without at the same time having a pronouncement upon title. In this matter the other word "status" is also most important, because in his winding up speech the Parliamentary Secretary dealing with one of my points said
"I agree with the noble Lord that the claim under Clause 4 (1), except for status, must be by someone interested."—[Official Report, Vol. 263 (No. 36), col. 115, February 9, 1965.]
I understand that status is different from ownership; it is different from title, and it may well be different from commonable rights. I think that we ought to have a

731
quite clear exposition of this at this stage from the Parliamentary Secretary, because I feel that it would enable us to save a lot of time.
LORD MITCHISON: I entirely agree; I think it will. I think this difficulty is rather a verbal one, but I will try to make matters as clear as I possibly can. You put ownership on the register for other purposes than for establishing or recording title. To take an obvious instance, I think I am right in saying that rating registers—valuation rolls, as they are called in Scotland—show both the owner and the occupant. Nobody has ever suggested that that had any effect whatsoever on the question of title. It is similarly intended here that ownership should be registered for the purpose of identifying the man who is the owner, but not for the purpose of establishing or impugning his title. I suppose I must be legally minded, but it does not seem to me that there is any obscurity at all about this. You can put down for a number of purposes—in this case it is for determining questions of commons—someone who claims to be (that is no more than it is in this case) the owner of property; and if you are going to deal with the property—
LORD MOLSON: The owner of the land.
LORD MITCHISON: The owner of real property, the owner of land. You can do that, but that does not have any effect on his title unless you say so; and you do not say so. You do not say so in this Bill. If the noble Lord will look at the two following subsections, I think he will see the way the procedure works. Under subsection (2) (a), what is going to lapse is the question of status. That is how the word is used. I do not altogether love it—in that matter I agree with the noble Lord—but it is rather convenient in relation to the question of whether land is common land or a town or village green. Mr. X may be the owner of certain meadows, but the question of whether these meadows are common land is a separate question. They may or may not be common land. The point is that if no claim is made that they are common land, their status or supposed status as common land will lapse at the end of the registration period.
732
If I may refer on for a moment, the noble Lord will see that under Clause 4 (2) the
"registration authority may register any land as common land … notwithstanding that no application for that registration has been made…".
That is a provision about status; and subsection (2) (a) is also a provision about status. Once the land is common land, then there have been or are persons entitled to rights of common over it. I say carefully "there have been or are" because there are cases where common land may be shown to exist but no one may be able to find the commoner; and therefore the rights of common will also lapse unless that land is registered within a certain time. But not a word about rights of ownership lapsing.
And if you go to subsection (3), you find the provisions for the case where no one has registered as the owner. The first one is the town or village green, which is to
"be vested in accordance with the following provisions"
they are provisions for vesting in the local authority, and there are other provisions about it, too. Then paragraph (b) is left open
"if it is common land, be vested as Parliament may hereafter determine".
Again, I mention this on Second Reading, and I think that it is right to leave open the question of ownership if it is unregistered and undetermined.
5.10 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: I am sorry, but the noble Lord is falling into his own trap. He just said that it is leaving the ownership undetermined. If the noble Lord will look at the beginning of the clause he will see that it says that what is to be registered is "land in England or Wales which is common land"; secondly, under paragraph (b) there is registered the commoners' rights; and under paragraph (c), comes the registration of the ownership of such land. Of course, it is possible that there may be no known owner under paragraph (c), but the land will be registered under paragraph (a) and the commoners' rights will be registered under paragraph (b). What the noble Lord meant was that it would not register a title. He did not

733
mean that it would not register ownership, because it would register either the owner of the land or the fact that there was no known owner of the common land.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect, this really is rather verbal. I was trying to make clear that the registration of ownership under this Bill has no effect one way or the other on the question of title—the question of ownership of the land in that sense. The only place where an entry has any effect upon title is in the Land Registry. It is perfectly true that, for the purpose of this Bill, ownership is registered in the sense of being put on the register. But when one looks at the consequences, the two things which lapse are the status, the question whether it be common land or not, and the particular rights of common. They are what lapse if they are not registered. There is no provision for the ownership lapsing if it is not registered. Indeed, it would be very unfair to the Land Registry if there were any such provision.
It is for that reason that we have been able to shorten the period recommended by the Commission. The Commission had intended entries of ownership in the register to have an effect which we do not think they ought to have. In order to get that effect one would need to have a much longer period for registering than is actually the case. If it is a question of registering title, possessory title, for instance, it takes the full period to work that out. One could not do it in three years. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord I would point out that other provision is made for cases where no ownership has been registered. The provision is twofold. First, as regards town or village greens, they are dealt with in the Bill. Secondly, as regards commons, they are deliberately and of intention left open on the question of ownership until we come to the second stage legislation. I am sure that that is right, and that noble Lords will agree with me. One cannot determine questions of ownership in this Bill. The whole object of this measure is to find out what are the rights of commons, what is common land, who are entitled to all these rights—commons matters, as it were.
LORD HAWKE: Some of us are getting rather fogged on this matter.
LORD MITCHISON: I am not surprised.
LORD HAWKE: Would it not make the matter clearer, at any rate in one's own mind, if after paragraph (c), "the ownership of such land", one put in brackets "E.&O.E."?
LORD MITCHISON: I do not know that we ought to introduce the language of invoices into an Act of Parliament.
LORD HAWKE: I meant in one's own mind, not on paper.
LORD MITCHISON: In sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, may I say that I think this necessarily is a difficult Bill to follow. Its relation to other types of legislation made for other purposes is rather complicated. If it is the least consolation to the noble Lord, I would say that it took me a very long time indeed to find out what I thought was the right answer to some of these points. I sympathise absolutely with him. When one asks, "Cannot you explain yourself in clearer language?", all I can say is I have done my best. At the end of the day I do not think I can explain it more clearly, because it is too complicated a subject. That is the real difficulty about it.
LORD HURCOMB: While I accept what the noble Lord says about the extreme complexity of this matter, I would ask whether he would give some further consideration to the position of all the members of the public who are interested in commons from so many points of view. If they live in Hampshire or in Surrey, or wherever it may be, they want to be able to know what the common lands are. They are also interested in what is going to happen to them if no owner is registered. The Bill says that if the Commons Commissioner is not satisfied that the land is a town or village green, he can direct the registration authority to register as its owner the local authority. But does that mean that the local authority is going to be registered as the owner of land to which there is no valid title? It is that kind of thing which is puzzling many people, though I do not expect the noble Lord to go into further arguments about it now. However, I am

735
sure that some considered, clarifying statement at a fairly early stage would set many minds at rest. People's minds are not competent to revolve around all these legal wheels, and they would like to know where the matter stands.
LORD MITCHISON: May I assure the noble Lord that we have had this very much in mind? I do not expect even people concerned in this matter to read the speech which I made on Second Reading, when I clearly said that we were going to have a full explanatory leaflet, and that we were going to do all we could to see that it got about and was made widely available; and that we should prescribe, as we have power to prescribe, to the local authorities steps for this kind of thing. We fully appreciate the need for an explanation related to the ordinary man and to the kind of case which he will have to consider for himself. I assure the noble Lord that that has been far from forgotten. Indeed I said something about it on Second Reading.
LORD CHORLEY: While I was listening to my noble friend, it seemed to me that when he spoke about registration of the ownership of the land he was talking about registration of claims to the ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, both referred to cases where there is not a claimant to the ownership at all. The draftsman of the Bill obviously had that much in mind, because later on he makes some attempt to deal with it. It is also a possibility, which so far has not been mentioned, that several people may be claiming the ownership in regard to this matter. Clearly, in that case the ownership of the land cannot be registered, but the claims to the ownership can be so registered. It seems to me that it would make this subject much simpler, both as a matter of law and as a matter of understanding it from the common sense point of view, if we said "claims to ownership" instead of "ownership".
LORD MITCHISON: I am sorry to take up time, but I think that I can answer that point quite shortly. I agree with my noble friend that what one is really registering is a claim to ownership. It is no more than that, because if you said you were registering ownership you might give rise, unless your language was rather care-
736
fully worded and in the right context, to the idea that there was some question of title. There is no question of title involved at all in this Bill, as regards the ownership of land. There are questions of title (of right, as it were) involved both in relation to its status and in relation to the rights of common. Lastly, as to conflicting claims to ownership, the reason I did not mention the subject was that one, numerically, comes first, and matters such as that are dealt with in later clauses.
LORD McNAIR: I do not wish to prolong the discussion on Clause 1, but there is one point that gives me some trouble, and possibly the noble and learned Lord could clear it up. Let us suppose that under Clause l (1) (c) I register a claim to the ownership of land. Clause 9 says that:
"The registration … of any rights over any such land shall be conclusive evidence… as at the date of registration."
I should like to feel clear that that is not intended to give, and does not give, the same sort of conclusive title which one would get under the Act of 1925.
LORD MITCHISON: I am sorry to take up so much time, but there is a short answer to that question. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 9 he will see that the registration is to be conclusive evidence of what is registered, and what is registered is "any land as common land or as a town or village green"—that is, the question of status—"or of any rights over any such land"—that is rights of common. So that under Clause 9 the entries are conclusive as to the two matters about which I said they would be conclusive—after the end, of course, of the period of registration and after dealing with objections—but they are not conclusive as to ownership. That is the short answer.
LORD MOLSON: In that case, one would suppose that it might be better—perhaps we could consider this when we come to Clause 9, but I give the Government notice—to say in Clause 9 that registration should be conclusive as regards paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1 (1) but not of the whole clause, because paragraph (c) uses the words, "the ownership of such land". It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord is entirely right in what he has said.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect, Clause 9 is perfectly clear. It does not deal with ownership; it deals with status, and it deals with rights. If I may make two somewhat personal points, in this place I am not "learned"; and, secondly, whether I was learned or not, I should never try to interfere with the Parliamentary draftsmen on a question which is really one of language.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Registration authorities
2.—(1) The registration authority for the purposes of this Act shall be—

(a) in relation to any land situated in any county or county borough, the council of that county or county borough; and

(b) in relation to any land situated in Greater London, the Greater London Council;

except where an agreement under this section otherwise provides.
5.23 p.m.
Earl BEAUCHAMPmoved, in subsection (1) (a), after "land" to insert "(not being land situated in the Malvern Hills)". The noble Earl said: I should like to add my tribute to that of my noble friend Lord Molson to the very patient and kind way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is conducting this Committee. I would ask the Leader of the House very respectfully to treat my Amendment as what is known as a paving Amendment, because that will be for the general convenience of the Committee, and I shall then be able to refer to the next Amendment in my name, No. 11, and to the consequential last one, No. 32. I am very grateful if silence indicates consent for that permission. I would say, first of all, that I do not think the Amendments which I am moving would turn this Bill into a Hybrid Bill, which is something we all dislike, because I do not believe that at any stage anybody will ever want to attack it, whether by way of petition or in any other way. Fourteen out of the twenty-six members of the Malvern Hills Conservators are those representing local authorities, and at all times they can put their views forward.
The land concerned lies mostly in Worcestershire and Herefordshire, but lest I should be thought remiss I should add that there is a very small part of
738
the land in Gloucestershire; but it is so small that Gloucestershire have never even asked to have a representative on this body. The Conservators control 2,600 acres altogether. They have already got one jump ahead of Her Majesty's Government, because they have made a register of their commoners and licensees. They have existed since 1884, since when various Malvern Hills Acts have been passed—the last one in 1930 when we had a Labour Government. I think the truth is that this body, the Malvern Hills Conservators, resembles a local authority very closely indeed.
If this Bill goes through I can see some trouble for Her Majesty's Government in this particular case, because instead of consulting one homogeneous authority, they will have to consult three; and that surely will lead to a great waste of time and to great trouble. I also believe that, as things stand, county councils already have a great deal to do and do not desire this extra duty; and I do not think we want to put it upon them. I have heard it suggested that if this Amendment is accepted Her Majesty's Government will then be deluged by a flood of similar applications, but I do not think this is the case. If your Lord-ships will look through the Marshalled List of Amendments, you will not see one Amendment of any kind resembling my three Amendments. I could say a great deal more about the Malvern Hills Conservators, but I do not think that is called for on this occasion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, after ("land") insert ("(not being land situated in the Malvern Hills)").—(Ear! Beauchamp.)
LORD MITCHISON: This is a matter about which there has been quite extensive correspondence with the body in question the Malvern Hills Conservators, or someone acting on their behalf. I should like to begin at once by saying how much one appreciates the excellent work that has been done by the Conservators, not merely on the question of registration but in other directions, too. I have read their evidence before the Royal Commission, as I have also read the evidence of the Malvern Urban District Council, who, on the whole, supported them. I might perhaps be allowed to add that I had the greatest admiration

739
and respect for the Clerk of that body when he was alive and appeared on that occasion. None the less, I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment; and let me tell the noble Earl, with all respect and sympathy, why.
It is quite true that the county councils are very busy. It is for that reason that they have an adequate staff as a rule. If we start letting in smaller bodies, either local authorities (though I do not want to prejudge what we may have to say about that later) or particular bodies, which say, not without justice, that in many respects they resemble local authorities, we shall then be adding considerably to the number of registration authorities. Moreover, we shall be putting on the Malvern Hills Conservators a duty which is rather beyond anything they have had to do in the past. I do not want to push this point too far, but, if one looks at their evidence, and the questions they were asked before the Royal Commission, it is clear that, although they have done a great many good and sensible things, their title to do them was not always too clear. They have their private legislation—there is no reason to go into it now—but we should be putting a very serious burden on them.
The Government have considered this kind of question—the question of a common extending into three counties. In this particular case I think I am right in saying that much the largest portion is in Worcestershire, although I notice the representation on the board of conservators is equal as between Worcestershire and Herefordshire. There is a provision in Clause 2 (2)
"Where part of any land is in the area of one registration authority and part in that of another the authorities may by agreement provide for one of them to be the registration authority in relation to the whole of the land."
I said on the Second Reading of this Bill that I thought its whole working and success depended upon the willing cooperation of the local authorities concerned, particularly the county councils. I should have thought that in this matter they would, without much difficulty, be able to form a joint authority. But I would not wish to discourage the noble Lord.
The conservators are in fact not only an authority for sundry statutory purposes but they are also considerable
740
owners. They bought up pieces of land and common rights, and so on, and though no doubt in a statutory body of this kind it is not a conclusive objection, I think it is some objection that they are already largely personally interested in cases as a body where they would also have to be the proper authority for registration. I think it is better to have a registration authority that normally has not much financial proprietory interest in the land which it is registering. For this reason I think the county councils are better.
We have not yet reached the stage of schemes and the like for managing these commons, and I cannot give any assurance. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that we have to find out people's rights, and this is a case, in all conscience, where the rights are, at any rate to the outsider, frightfully tangled as between one person and another. Therefore, I cannot give any assurance about it, but it seems to me quite impossible to promote any scheme about the Malvern Hills without at least consulting very carefully the Malvern Hills Conservators and, no doubt, the district council concerned.
I hope the noble Earl will feel that we are trying to meet him so far as we can, but this is not yet the moment for asserting the rights of the conservators; and that as a registration authority they would be quite exceptional, as he himself indicated, and they would not be the best body for the purpose. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord may feel he can withdraw his Amendment, but I repeat my usual undertaking, except that in this case, as he knows, it has already been very carefully considered. However, a little more consideration will not do any harm, if he so wishes.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GRIMSTON of WESTBURY LORD GRIMSTON of WESTBURY moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "county or". The noble Lord said: Perhaps I might suggest it would be for your Lordships' convenience if we took the other Amendments standing in my name, namely, Nos. 7, 8 and 10, at the same time as they all hang together. For the sake of clarity, when they are all

741
put together it would make paragraph (a) of Clause 2 (1) read as follows:
"The registration authority in relation to any land situated in any county borough or county district, the council of that county borough or county district…".
As your Lordships will see the object of the Amendment is to make the county district council and not the county council the registration authority. I think here perhaps I should declare, if not a direct interest, at least the vestige of one inasmuch as I am the President of one of the local authority associations, the Urban District Councils Association. The reasons why we wish to do this are several, and first of all I will take one which is perhaps not a minor one but of less importance—namely, the convenience of the local commoner and the local landowner, and I think (their convenience should be considered.
It cannot be denied that for those people it is very much easier to deal with a local council office and not a county hall, which in many cases is quite a considerable distance away. I do not advance that as one of the most important points, but I think it merits consideration. Your Lordships will realise that claims will have to be made by people living in, or interested in, the district. For that reason local advertisements will have to be inserted in newspapers. There will have to be publicity of various kinds, and, as your Lordships will know, in the average county the local Press does not cover the whole county but covers a certain area, very often corresponding to the county district. There will be other forms of publicity required, but also I think there will have to be much fact finding on the spot. There could be no better focal point for all these activities than the local council office, which the local people know about; they know their way there, and it is the place to which in any case they will naturally go.
There is another point in this connection. I think in any case county councils, if they were the registration authorities, would certainly have to ask county districts to do their spadework and a lot of the fact finding for them, and I think past experience shows this is in fact what happens. This also is a reason for making the district council the registration authority. It may be argued that the county district staffs are not so technically qualified as the county council staffs.
742
That may be true; but, after all, the work of registration—and the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary has stressed in discussing previous Amendments that we are only concerned with registration—does not involve deep knowldge of planning or adjudication or land utilisation, or anything of that kind. After all, registration was done by county district councils long before county councils became planning authorities. I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but those are briefly the reasons why we believe that the proper authority for the registration should be the county district council.
There is a broader theme on which I should like to conclude, not so much a matter of convenience, ease of collecting information, and so on, but that the administration of local government should be brought as near to the needs of those immediately effected as is possible. I think this Bill makes it, in respect of registration, more remote than it need be. I would therefore advance that general consideration in favour of the Amendment. In conclusion, I very much appreciate the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary, that he will be prepared to think again, and I take it from him when he says that, he means it. I therefore very much hope, after what I have said and after what may be said by other noble Lords, that he will have another real look at this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("county or").—(Lord Grimston of Westbury.)
5.40 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: The two Amendments which stand in my name a little later in the Paper, numbered 6 and 9, deal with substantially the same matters as the Amendment that has just been moved by my noble friend. Both Amendments seek to make the county districts, instead of the county councils, the registration authorities under this Bill. My noble friend's Amendment is a little wider than mine. It would make the boroughs, the urban district councils and rural district councils the registration authorities; but my Amendment is restricted to the boroughs only. I suppose that I should follow the example that my noble friend has set and declare such interests as I have in this matter as the President of the organisation which caters for the municipal boroughs:

743
and it is for that reason that I did not feel that I ought to include other authorities in the Amendments which I ventured to put down. But the issues which these Amendments raise are, in essence, the same, and I desire to adopt everything my noble friend has said in support of his Amendment. In the interests of the Committee's time, I propose to state the arguments that I desire to address to the Committee now, and later, when my Amendments are reached, I propose, with the Committee's consent, to move the first Amendment formally.
Members of the Committee will be aware that for some years past it has been the tendency of legislation to withdraw powers from the smaller authorities and to concentrate responsibility in the hands of the county councils. Indeed, with the growth in the complexity and cost of modern municipal services that process has been almost inevitable. The resources of the smaller authorities have not been adequate to enable them to undertake responsibility for many major services. But the smaller authorities still are, and I think will always remain, an important and, indeed, essential element in our municipal democracy with which we cannot afford to dispense. When an opportunity arises, as I submit to the Committee it arises in this Bill, to entrust to the smaller authorities something which is within their competence, then members of the Committee would, I apprehend, be inclined to welcome that opportunity and, I hope, to act upon it.
In this Bill the county councils have been made the registration authority for no better reason, so far as I can see, than to keep in step with the contemporary fashion of legislation. I can see no reason why the county councils should have been given this responsibility, except that that has been the tendency of legislation in recent years. Registration of land charges is something that is well within the competence of the smaller authorities—the non-county boroughs, and the urbans and the rurals. They can, and they do, undertake registration more cheaply and more conveniently than the county councils are able to do. In fact, I am told that the district councils now register more local land charges than the county councils themselves.
I have tried to enumerate the different classes of land charges which the district
744
councils at present register. They register charges for making up streets, which in some towns are very numerous and very important; they register charges under the Public Health Acts where houses are in need of repair, or where repairs have been carried out at the public expense; they register street improvements—the by-laws fixing building lines, and so forth; they register charges under the building by-laws. Then, in those counties where town planning powers have been delegated to the county district councils—and the administration of the planning regulations has been very largely delegated to the district councils—the district councils register town planning consents and various other matters arising under the town planning restrictions; and they also register, where there is delegation, what are called the "Trees Orders", which secure the preservation of trees. So registration is by no means a new responsibility for the district councils. They are very familiar indeed with the functions of registration.
I am told that the non-county boroughs will need no additional staff to carry out this function of registration under this Bill if the Committee should decide to assign it to them. In the majority of councils the present staff is adequate to carry out this additional registration work without further recruitment. The county councils, on the other hand, will certainly need additional staff. The work falling on county councils to-day is immense, and their staffs are fully occupied with what they have to do at present. They will certainly have to engage additional staff in order to undertake this duty.
Perhaps the most important argument in favour of this proposed change is that registration by the district council will be much more convenient for the general public than registration by the county authority. A person who desires to inspect the register will, if it is kept at the county town, have to make a journey of perhaps twenty or thirty miles in order to examine the register. It is surely sensible that these local authorities should be made the registration authorities for common land, including the town and the village greens. The members and officers of these authorities are local people who are acquainted with their neighbourhood and know a good

745
deal about their town and village greens Indeed, in many cases they are the authority responsible for maintaining the town and village greens or the commons within their districts. It is surely absurd that these town greens, surrounded as they are in most cases by the town itself, and usually managed by the town council, should be registered at a county town twenty or thirty miles away.
I do not know what the noble Lord is going to say about these Amendments. I hope he will extend to them the welcome, if it is a welcome, which he has extended generally to the Amendments to this Bill. If the noble Lord takes that course, then I shall be very ready, with the Committee's leave, to withdraw my Amendments and consider them again before the Report stage. But, if I may risk repeating myself, this Bill provides the Committee with the opportunity to do something which noble Lords have very often been anxious to do: that is, to build up in some measure the smaller local authorities throughout the country. Here we have something they can do very conveniently and I hope that the Committee will eventually come to the conclusion that they ought to be allowed to do it.
LORD AUCKLAND: I rise to support very warmly the Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Ilford. I have No 1nterests to declare in this matter, since I am not concerned with local government; but for nearly eleven years I have lived in the constituency of Epsom, and some months ago I caused some consternation in your Lordships' house over another matter regarding it. But I do not think that what I am about to say will have quite the same effect. Nevertheless, Epsom, as a non-county borough, will suffer, as I understand it, under this Bill. The anomaly here seems first to be on the ground of population. Epsom, with a population of 71,700, and Carlisle, a county borough with a population of 71,219, will be treated differently under this Bill. But in 1936, under the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Act, a great deal of land was obtained for the purposes of the local people. Now, 1,200 acres of common land have been preserved and are administered very efficiently by the Conservators.
746
The Royal Commission categorically state that the county councils already have far too much on their plate. This is particularly true of the Surrey County Council at the present time, following the London Government Act; and I am certainly not convinced that the staffs of the Surrey County Council would be any more efficient than the staffs of our local Epsom and District Council in administrating this matter, which they have done for a long time past. It seems to me that this Amendment strikes very much at the roots of local government. Epsom Downs have been frequented by many people engaged in various pastimes for many years past, and the administration, as I have said earlier, has always been very efficient. If this Bill goes through, as my noble friend Lord Ilford has said, people who wish to glean information will have to go to their county hall—and Kingston is not the easiest place to get to from Epsom—whereas at the moment they can go to their town hall and get the information quite easily.
The Town Clerk of Winchester, who is also Secretary of the Non-County Boroughs Association, said quite clearly at a recent conference that a county council of any size in modern times is so overburdened with work that all details and most policy is dealt with by committees. The Town Clerk of Winchester is a man who has had a great deal of experience in local government, and I hope that the Government will take due notice of this matter, give it the closest consideration and accept the Amendments of my noble friend, which are solely and purely in the interests of really good local government.
LORD MITCHISON: I said at the beginning that I would gladly, if anyone asked me, undertake to look again at any question that was raised. Of course I will stand by that. But I made it clear that I would give no undertaking whatever; and I think it is only fair to noble Lords who have put their case to say that, although I will look at it again, I see little prospect in this particular case of what would be a rather radical change in the Bill. The choice of county councils and county borough councils as the registration authorities comes, of course, from the Royal Commission's Report, and, I venture to think, it is right and inevitable.

747
The district councils have other functions under the Bill, the Committee will notice, and in particular they have functions under Clause 8 (5) in respect of unclaimed land, which vests not in the county council but in the county district council—and I am using that phrase to include the non-county boroughs. It is true, as has been said, that the centre of the district council is likely to be nearer for most people than the centre of the county council. I can assure the Committee that in my Party, at any rate, we are very appreciative of this kind of point, for we find great difficulty in getting people to serve on county councils because of the distances they may have to go from their place of work or abode. That is true.
It is also perfectly true to say that district councils have various functions and some of them include keeping registers; but this task is too much, in my opinion, to put on a district council. They vary in size and some are very small indeed. I will give one or two figures which I extracted from that common source of information, the current Municipal Year Book. The task of keeping these registers and carrying out the other functions of the registration authorities under the Bill is not just formal, not just a case of keeping a book and seeing that entries are made in it. It is a very responsible business. If your Lordships would look through the Bill you would find, time and time again, cases where the registration authorities have to do this and have to do that. Therefore it is, as it always is in local government, a question of balancing the proximity and human factors in the country district councils against the greater resources of the county councils.
I hope that I am putting this in a way which is clear and understood. This balance between the two ranges of authorities is no new matter. My present feeling is strongly that we must come down on the side of the county councils. Since, no doubt, the matter will be raised again on Report, I hope your Lordships will co-operate with my good intention to the extent both of withdrawing Amendments for the moment and of putting them down again on Report and saying anything more that
748
occurs to them either to me in the interval or to the House on Report.
I think that I ought to mention the figures I have been extracting—I say this with great deference to the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, under whose chairmanship I have sat at sundry excellent informal dinners, over which he presided as President of the Urban District Councils' Association. He also sat as chairman in another place. Still, facts are facts. In England, there are 49 county councils and 81 county boroughs—although it will be naturally the case that the county councils will be far more concerned over this matter than the county boroughs. In Wales, there are 13 county councils and 4 county boroughs, and the total tots up to 143 registration authorities—quite a sizeable number. If we look at them, we find that Rutland, which by some miracle or misfortune has survived, is the smallest county and its population is 26,430. In Wales, Radnorshire has a population of 18,000-odd. In England, as sundry of my noble friends behind me have been reminding me, easily the smallest county borough is Canterbury, with 31,000, and the smallest in Wales, Merthyr Tydfil, has 58,000, in round figures.
Now let us turn to the other possibility. We are asked to bring in the non-county boroughs, urban district councils and rural district councils. I do not want to bother your Lordships with detailed figures, unless you want them, but I added up the total and I find (although I am always a little doubtful about my own arithmetic) that there are 1,352 authorities. I rather blench at having 1,352 registers. Of course, there is going to be a county review, and I agree that some of them may disappear—but Rutland is still there. When we look at the smallest of these authorities, Bishops Castle, with a population of 1,230, is going to keep a commons register whether it has common land or not and there is Montgomery, the smallest in Wales, with 970. The smallest of the urban district councils in England is Saxmundham with 1,500; and the odd thing is that the smallest R.D.C. in Wales has exactly the same population—a nice round number, if they counted them right. There is a placed called Llanwrtyd—I cannot pronounce the name properly—
LORD BRECON: Llanwrtyd U.D.C.
LORD MITCHISON: I am most grateful for the noble Lord's assistance. He left out "Wells", but that is an English interpolation. There are 500 people living there. It is really too much to ask local authorities of that size to do the difficult and responsible job that is called for under this Bill. I quite understand the feeling about it. I am well aware that quite a number of them could. For instance, there is Epsom, which is huge in comparison with a number of these places and used to be a very large urban district, though I do not know what has happened to it. Eton R.D.C. is a surprisingly large authority.
But if we take these authorities on the average, they are small. We are going to have difficulty enough in rousing real enthusiasm in the counties, one or two of which have no or few commons; but when it comes to stirring up hundreds of district councils, I am sure that those who have no commons would be profoundly bored with the whole business. I do not think that it is within the capacity of the Government or of the Ministry to do this. If we were told by Parliament to do it, of course, we should try; but I think that if this change were made the prospects of success of the Bill would be seriously hindered, simply because of the number of authorities concerned.
The sort of difficulty we had just now about the Malvern Hills being within three counties would increase to staggering numbers. Some of these commons are going to be in the area of more than one R.D.C. I sat in another place for a constituency which contained five U.D.C.s and a couple of R.D.C.s, and it still did not take in anything like the whole of one of the smallest counties in England. Some council areas are very small indeed, and we cannot rely on the County Review, which has broader objectives in mind than those in this Bill. On the present position, their sheer number represents an absolutely conclusive answer.
When it comes to a small council, I must take leave to differ a little from the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. No doubt some of them have enough staff and can manage, but a great many of them will not have. I know a number of such councils who would be quite unable to do
750
this job without taking on a special staff and if they require a special staff—and we have to deal altogether with 1,352 authorities—it is going to put them to quite considerable expense.
The long and short of it is that this Bill depends on the co-operation and good will of local authorities, and we shall not get it if we push the keeping of these registers on to the smallest local authorities. The only hope of achieving this is to have a manageable number of local authorites, who already have the sort of resources that are sufficient for this purpose. I agree that if we could do it in the way suggested, that in itself would be an advantage, but I do not think that it is practicable. If we allowed these Amendments, the difficulty would be that the Bill would not work. That is my present feeling about it. Having expressed myself in these forcible terms, I repeat that if any noble Lord wants me to, I will think about it again and talk to people about it. I will gladly talk to any of the associations or authorities concerned, if they want it. On those terms, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their Amendments, but I give them no undertaking.
LORD ILFORD: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am not addressing him as "the noble and learned Lord" because, as he rightly says, he left his learning in another place. But I am grateful for having been invited to discuss this matter with him, and I fully understand the terms on which that discussion will take place. I would only say one thing to the noble Lord. He has been at some considerable pains to extract the particulars of the very small authorities. I invite him to have a look at some of the larger authorities. I hope that the noble Lord will not be too impressed by the question of population, because there are many precedents for responsibilities given to local authorities above a certain prescribed level of population.
LORD GRIMSTON of WESTBURY: I, also, should like to thank the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. He has made the position quite plain. I do not want to keep your Lordships, but I should like to make two short observations in connection with what the noble Lord said. He talked about the good will of the

751
local authorities. I would point out that the Associations speak for their respective local authorities, and they all desire what these Amendments propose. So I think there must be good will.
Secondly, I entirely agree with the noble Lord when he says that this is a question of getting the right balance. He thinks the balance is in favour of the county councils. We think at the moment that it is the other way. But in thinking of it again, as he has promised to do, I hope he will have regard to what my noble friend Lord Ilford has said, and what I also said, about the general theme: that, where we can, we want to do what we can to increase the importance of the smaller local authorities rather than to diminish it. I suggest that this is a factor which should be brought into account when considering what the balance is to be. Having said that, I would again thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved to add to Clause 2:
"() The Minister shall appoint a suitable person to be Custodian of Common Land.
() The Custodian shall exercise the powers given to him by sections 4 and 8 and section (Powers of Custodian of Common Rights) of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Bill provides for the registration of two kinds of land, and it provides for the setting up of registers for each: one is a town or village green, and the other is common land. In the case of both these types of old land with public rights over them it often happens that it is difficult or impossible to find the owner. In the case of a town or village green, it is proposed in the Bill that it should be vested in the local authority; but in the case of common land, it is to be vested "as Parliament may hereafter determine". Man proposes, but God disposes, and when this legislation will be passed and implemented nobody knows.
We take the view that it is an extremely serious thing that in the case of common land, where either the owner is not known or he does not come forward, that land should be left without any owner for an indefinite time to come. It is largely in order to deal with this point that I have i
752
put down this Amendment providing for the appointment of a custodian of common rights. The dangers of having commons registered as having no known owner have only to be mentioned, I think, to be fully appreciated. There is No 1nducement to the owner of common land to register himself as the owner. The Parliamentary Secretary said in his winding-up speech on Second Reading that this was not a danger that he apprehended. We take a different view. If the owner of land which is either manorial waste or subject to common rights does not register it as common land, and if the commoners do not register their rights—and they may not be interested, or may not know of their rights—then under this Bill that land will cease to be a common, and the owner of the land will, after the lapse of three or more years, become the owner of an ordinary freehold.
It was largely for this reason that the Royal Commission proposed that unclaimed common land should vest in a public official. The reasons for this are set out in paragraph 303 of their Report. They proposed that the ownership should vest in the Crown, but that it should be administered by the Public Trustee. The Commons Preservation Society considered this, but they feel that the Public Trustee is an official very much burdened with heavy work and is associated chiefly with financial matters in London. It seemed to us better that there should be an appropriate person, a custodian of common rights, who should be appointed to deal with this matter.
I should like to say to the Government, however, that we are not in the slightest degree wedded to any particular way of dealing with this matter. All we feel is that it is extremely important that all these commons should not be left without an owner for an indefinite period of time. If the Government preferred to apply to unclaimed common land what they themselves have proposed should be done in the case of village greens, that would be entirely acceptable to us. But what is extremely serious is that the common land should be left without an owner.
It is almost impossible for any criminal action to be taken without the concurrence of the owner, who ex hypothesi will have no existence if the

753
land is registered as being without an owner. A case of this kind arose not long ago on Dartmoor, where the police were anxious to prosecute persons who without legal justification were cutting down and taking away wood; but they came up against the legal difficulty that they were unable to find an owner to give authority for the prosecution to be launched. We feel strongly, therefore, that a custodian of common rights should be appointed. He would have the powers which my Amendments to Clauses 4 and 8 would provide; he would have also the much fuller powers that are dealt with in the new Clause 16, to which I have ventured to speak in order to save time; and he would have the right to register with any registration authority a claim to the ownership of, or to any right in, or over any common land. While in no way wedded to the exact provisions of this proposal, we urge upon the Government most earnestly that it is asking ill-disposed people to encroach upon common rights if there is no provision in this Bill for the ownership to be registered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20 at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to support this Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has just moved so very clearly and persuasively. As he has pointed out, there is a need under the registration clause to have some person of this kind to take action. Still more is it necessary under Clause 8, which deals with the very important point—one which has been alluded to by various speakers during the course of the debate, both this afternoon and on Second Reading—of commons the ownership of which is, so to speak, in abeyance, or where the owners cannot be found. I think this is the more important of these two aspects.
This matter was obviously clearly in the minds of the Royal Commission, who gave a good deal of thought to it. I should have thought it was fairly clear that one needs some kind of a national authority to fulfil this requirement; and, looking round, the members of the Royal Commission evidently came to the conclusion that the Public Trustee was the most suitable of the
754
existing national officials to undertake, or to have put upon him, the burden of these two jobs. My noble and learned friend, in his speech on the Second Reading, gave reasons which were very strong why the Public Trustee is not altogether a suitable person to have these tasks put upon him, but that by no means displaces the need for some national authority.
I dare say the members of the Royal Commission felt there was a tendency to the proliferation of authorities. It involves expense and matters of that kind, and one can appreciate that at a time when there is a good deal of criticism of public expenditure there would be a desire to avoid further expense of this kind. But this is obviously a very small matter. This official is not one who will be tremendously highly paid; nor is he going to require much of a staff. On the other hand, it is very important, in relation to these matters, that you have somebody who acquires a really intimate knowledge of the problem with which he is dealing, which is one of the reasons why the Public Trustee would not be satisfactory to do this work. After a time, the custodian would acquire an invaluable knowledge of problems of this kind, and I think there is a strong case for having some person of this sort entrusted with this important work.
If the Government are serious about their desire to move on to the much more important matters of making these commons available to the public, and making them better equipped for agriculture and mat sort of thing, I think it is clear that they ought to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission in relation to the appointment of an official of this kind.
There are two reasons which are closely bound up with the need for somebody of this kind. There is a tendency, and there always has been—and this is one of the serious matters in connection with commons over the centuries—for common rights to be filched. To "steal the goose from off the common" is a well known phrase. That is what has happened, and it is still going on. Obviously an institution of this kind would be a valuable safeguard against that sort of thing; and that, I think, is a strong reason why this proposal should be accepted.

755
Obviously the law protecting commons—and this is perhaps the same point put in another way—depends to a considerable extent on offending action being done without the owner's consent, without the owner knowing about it, and we are considering, ex hypothesi, a substantial number of commons where no owner is known and where obviously this sort of thing is much more easy to carry out and these rights much more easy to invade. Therefore, if we could have a custodian of this kind, we should, in effect, be providing a considerable safeguard against this type of action, clandestine to a large extent, which has been depriving commoners and the general public, who are to be the inheritors of much of this land under the legislation we are looking forward to. Therefore, I think there is a very strong case indeed for the Government to accept this Amendment or, at any rate, to indicate some sort of method by which the same result can be achieved.
6.27 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: As the noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment have pointed out, the Royal Commission suggested a vesting of commons in the hands of the Public Trustee for the period they had in mind for registration where there was no other claimant—that is to say, for a period of twelve years. What we are considering now, as I understand it, is what is to happen to unclaimed commons during the much shorter period contemplated by this Bill. This Bill has in mind three years for registration, and two years for objections. Those figures not only have the support of the present Government, but were previously suggested by a Conservative Minister of Agriculture.
We should therefore be appointing someone who will either anticipate the next stage legislation or will do his job for a period of only five years. I do not think such a Custodian will be necessary, and I entirely disagree, with great respect, with my noble friend who said that his duties would be light. In fact, I think my noble friend somewhat belied his own statement by indicating afterwards that during his period of office the Custodian was going to look after encroachments of commons all
756
over the country. The wit of man has so far been unable to prevent the continuing encroachments, of which I gave particulars on Second Reading. How the Custodian, sitting in London, is expected to do this job I fail to understand. Of course, the practical answer is that he would have to be dependent for the complete performance of his duties on the local authorities. He would have to find out from them what the position was; and it would be not merely a matter of correspondence—it would be a good deal beyond that. It seems to me that you would be setting up, not a large Government Department, but quite a substantial department, even at the centre. One has therefore to consider very carefully whether this is really needed.
What is intended is that the Custodian would be empowered to act as a commons registration authority. I cannot quite see why that is necessary. And then he would be someone in whom common land would be vested by the direction of a commons commissioner after inquiry. It seems therefore that his effective period of functioning is going to be considerably shorter even than the five years, because there has to be first of all the lack of claim during the specified period and then the inquiry by the commons commissioner. I find his period of office diminishing rapidly, but his functions would, so far as I can see, conflict as registration authority with those of the counties and county boroughs or, if we accepted the last set of Amendments, of those other local authorities. There is considerable provision in this Bill for the kind of case that I think has distressed the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. I quite agree it does not cover every case, and for this reason there is a provision I am going to deal with in a minute, for commons, in effect, staying as they are until the time when we introduce further legislation.
First of all, if one looks at the case of status, that is to say, common land or town or village greens, in Clause 4 (2), the registration authority may register land as common notwithstanding that no application for that registration has been made. Secondly, under Clause 8 (1), there is a provision that where land has been registered as common land or as a town or village green—that is to say, where

757
its status has been determined, including determination by virtue of the exercise of power under Clause 4—if no person is registered under that section as the owner of the land, the question of the ownership of the land is to be referred to a commons commissioner and the commons commissioner shall inquire into the matter, and if he finds the owner (this is subsection (2)) direct the registration authority to register that person. Then, as regards town or village greens—but I agree not as regards commons—if no one is found the local authority is to become the owner. So it is only in the case of commons and not town or village greens that there can be a gap, and it is in accordance with that that the registration provisions in Clause 1 (3) provide that common land is to be vested as Parliament may hereafter determine.
I was not quite clear from what the noble Lords said in support of this Amendment, whether they intended the vesting in the custodian and his functions to be, as I at present understand, simply for the period until further legislation is introduced, or whether they intended those functions to remain in the further legislation. If it is the first alternative, as I think it is, I have already indicated that it would be a great pity to appoint a person for such a very short period and I do not see sufficient reason for doing it; nor do I see how he could carry out his duties at all simply or easily, as my noble friend was suggesting. If, on the other hand, it is intended to be the longer period, I would say it is anticipating, in the very way in which this Bill is intended to prevent, the contents of further legislation.
It may very well be that when we come to further legislation there will be cases where the local authority is the proper owner to be registered, there being no other claimant—cases, for instance, that would appeal to the amenities societies; and there will be other cases where some form of local management is suitable; there will be cases for some combination of the two, such as seemed possible in the discussion we were having about the Malvern Hills. I am not giving any undertaking about it, but all these things are possible, and it is in order to find out the best way of dealing with the commons in the country that this Bill is introduced. One does not want to say beforehand that
758
the best way of dealing with them is to have a custodian. I cannot see his purpose.
It is said that commons ought not to be without owners. This is strictly a question of management, not ownership. The ownership, I suppose, if there is no ascertainable or existent owner, must be in the Crown. That is the way the Royal Commission looked at it and they regarded the Public Trustee as the best person to manage them. The substantial point is that this is the result, not just of years but of centuries. You are now going to introduce a new official, with a pretty formidable task, for a very short period; or, if you do not do that, you are going to anticipate the decision which ought only to be reached when the full facts are known; and the whole object of this Bill is to get the full facts known. If they were known already there would not be need for the Bill. I have every sympathy with the Amendment; I see exactly what noble Lords have in mind, but I do think that it is not the right way to do it, and it is much better in this instance to leave the unclaimed commons alone for the period of less than five years which is contemplated.
Having introduced this Bill, we are not going to delay bringing forward the second stage legislation. Obviously there are questions of Parliamentary time involved; there are possibilities of one thing and another, and I suppose in five years we shall be having the next General Election. Apart from that kind of question, we certainly intend to deal with the matter, or we should not have brought in this Bill. I feel it would be a grave mistake, and it would have an unfortunate effect on the content of the second stage legislation. I hope therefore the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment. But I did not give an undertaking for nothing, and I repeat it. He knows there has been a lot of discussion and correspondence about this, but if he wants me to do any more I will try. I do beg him not to press the point, because I think we all mean the same thing here. I and those who advise me have looked into the matter very carefully, and we really think there is no need for this Amendment; that it would be on the wrong lines and it would not fulfil the excellent purposes he has in mind.
LORD MOLSON: The noble Lord has made a case against the Amendments as I have moved them. He has, however, referred to this gap in time between the passing of this Bill and the time when the next legislation will be introduced. He has said it will not be very long; it will be a matter of probably only two or three years or less; there is the time during which Clause 1 operates and, at the end of three years, any rights in commons from their existence as commons will cease under the operation of Clause 1. The Parliamentary Secretary has said this is a problem which has existed for centuries, but the whole thing is becoming much more acute as a result of the introduction of this Bill. If a person who is the owner of common land does not register it, if no one registers it, if commoners' rights are not registered over it, during the three years that Clause 1 is in operation before it becomes final, then no land capable of being registered under this Act shall be deemed to be common land and no right of common shall be exercisable.
The noble Lord himself, on Second Reading, referred to the fact that over long periods of time commons have been encroached upon by neighbouring landowners. We have recently had the case of one who claims to have acquired such land by squatter's rights. I have referred to the difficulty of the police, and of anyone else, in prosecuting those who are almost admittedly taking away from the commons what they have no right to take, simply because it is impossible to find the owner of that common. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his speech, has admitted that there is this gap in time during which no one is registered as the owner of the land. For the first time it is being published to the world, to ill-disposed people, that there is no owner of the land. It is therefore inviting wrongdoers of all kinds to take advantage of this period, be it long or be it short, before the next piece of legislation comes into effect.
I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. He has given us a frank assurance that he will look at these matters again. I frankly admit the force of his arguments against the Amendments which I have moved, but I beg him to look at the lacuna for the protection of commons which his own speeches have admitted, and ask him to take such
760
measures as he can to move an Amendment of his own which will result in this dangerous period being covered.
LORD MITCHISON: In order to avoid any future misunderstanding I must make it quite clear that we have looked at this lacuna. We know it is there, and the language of Clause 1 (3) would make it perfectly clear if there were any doubt about it. We know that the lacuna is there. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord that it would be better if it were not, but I do not think that this particular measure will get one out of the difficulty, and we have been unable to find any other way that would. If the Custodian were to be charged not only with the duty of detecting encroachments but, as seems to be said, with the duty of preventing them, he might have a quite formidable task.
However, I repeat that I will gladly look at this matter again. I also repeat that I give no assurance whatever, and my present impression is that the lacuna, though one we would rather were not there, is inevitable. May I add that I think it is a small one? I do not believe that there will be many cases where anybody is going to try to get unrestricted land as a result of a failure to register. There are all sorts of possibilities. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time now. I think there will be few cases where the Custodian would have anything to "custode". I understand what the noble Lord means. He must not expect me to accept his argument offhand. On the other hand, as I said, I will look at it.
LORD MOLSON: In view of the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. I have far greater belief in his ingenuity of mind in this matter than he has himself, and I confidently expect that he will find some way of covering the admitted lacuna.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
The registers
3.—(1) For the purpose of registering such land as is mentioned in section 1 (1) of this Act and rights of common over and ownership of such land every registration authority shall maintain—

(a) a register of common land; and

761

(b) a register of town or village greens;

and regulations under this Act may require or authorise a registration authority to note on those registers such other information as may be prescribed.
6.45 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved, in subsection (1), after "authority shall" to insert:
"open for registration not later than six months after the Act comes into force and thereafter".
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to make the Bill slightly more specific than it is at the moment. As the Bill at the moment reads:
"… every registration authority shall maintain—
(a) a register of common land;".
If the words in my Amendment were to be included, it would then read:
"… every registration authority shall open for registration not later than six months after the Act comes into force and thereafter maintain—
(a) a register of common land;".
I had hoped that if these additional words were included it would make perfectly clear precisely when people can go to their local authorities and register their claims to land and their claims to rights of common. At the moment the obligation is merely to maintain a register. I appreciate that there is a certain amount of complication about getting the regulations prepared and so forth, but if these words were inserted into the Bill it would mean that a certain amount of preparation could be done before the Bill became law. If in fact the Bill were to receive the Royal Assent in, say, June of this year, and if the Minister were to bring the Act into force at say December 31, it would mean that as from June of next year claims could begin to be registered, and one would have thought that that would have given a reasonable length of time. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—Page 2, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD MITCHISON: I ought to explain what is intended about the appointed day because that is really what this turns on. If your Lordships look at the provisions about it, there will be power to bring sections of the Act separately into operation. The intention is not expressed in the Bill, but I can
762
assure your Lordships that we will proceed with diligence about it and bring Clause 3, at any rate, with or without other clauses into operation as soon as the registration authorities are ready to open their registers. Once Clause 3 is in operation, as I read it they are then under the statutory obligation to maintain a register; and, of course, in order to maintain it they must have opened it. Therefore I think that in a narrow sense we go a little further than the noble Earl proposes. The machinery is slightly different, but that is really the only point there is in it.
May I repeat that we intend to bring Clause 3 into effect as soon as possible? Clause 3 can come into operation only when the registration authorities are ready to work, and the moment it does come into operation their registers must be opened and ready for filling in. Therefore, we are trying to do the best we can, and in fact this Amendment would not greatly help because it leaves the appointed day provision exactly as it is at present. So far as opening the register is concerned, we require it to be immediately on the appointed day, whereas the noble Earl would leave an interval, which would not really be necessary because the appointed day would have allowed for the preparation. I hope that I have made this clear, and that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making the point so clear. I am also glad to note that in fact his intention is to be even quicker than was thought to be possible under my Amendment. I am glad to hear it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.50 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after the end of paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: At the outset I will put the noble Lord at ease by saying that I do not wish to press this particular Amendment very hard. The only point of it is to ask the noble Lord if he will be good enough to give us some information. As I understand the matter, the main requirements of the register are first as to what is common land; second, as to who are the owners of it; third, as to who or what has rights over it. That basically constitutes

763
the register. On top of that come other varieties of information which may be required to be noted. I assume that this kind of information which will be required is, for instance, whether there are rights of way over the commons and so on. Could the noble Lord give us a little more information as to exactly what type of information is going to be required? For example, will gas, electricity and water easements over commons be required? Will shooting rights be required to be put on the register? Does this also apply to people or bodies who have rights to play tennis, or golf, and other such entertainments or sports? How far in fact will this register go in compiling information?
It seems to me that one wants the register to be as full as possible. If, on the other hand, one makes it too comprehensive one will merely "gum up the works," and the register will become so complex that one will not get all the information one requires. Equally, can the noble Lord explain how much is to be required and how much is to be allowed? If the noble Lords looks at line 27 he will see the words:
"regulations under this Act may require or authorise a registration authority to note …".
Can the noble Lord say exactly what will be required and what will be allowed to be noted, because a person may have a claim which will not be required to be placed on the register but which he may wish to be registered. If the noble Lord could give the Committee some information on that, I should be grateful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out lines 27 to 29.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD MITCHISON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for putting down this Amendment and for making so clear what his purpose was in so doing. The intention of the entries by way of a note is that they should be entirely voluntary; that is to say that, although the registration authority may be required to note them, nobody shall be obliged to make them. If they are made there is no provision for their being supported by statutory declarations; there is no provision about advertisements, nothing about formal applications of any kind. They are therefore simply intended to be, in the
764
most informal sense, notes. It seemed to us that it would be in the interests of persons who had interests of the sort that fall to be noted here to have some note made on the register even if it were of that informal character. It would complicate things considerably if one tried to make it any more.
I will read out the list of examples which I have been given. I can think of many more and I am sure the noble Earl can too, so this must not be taken as an exhaustive list. They are: mineral rights, sporting rights, charges, easements and rights of way. Easements would cover the cases which the noble Earl had in mind in regard to gas and electricity. Rights of way, of course, cover paths and cases of that sort where there is public access. I suppose golf is a form of sport, and it is quite clear that rights of that kind are to be noted. I want to emphasise that it is very advisable to have some provision of the sort for the protection of the people concerned in these rights—which are not, of course, rights of common at all. Indeed, as to some of them it might be doubtful whether in a conveyance of land they would in fact be noted. That is a technical question which I do not want to go into now.
Therefore, it is right to give maximum liberty to note, to attach the minimum consequences to noting, and to make the noting entirely voluntary. This is intended to be a provision for the protection, up to a point—and one cannot go further in a Bill of this sort—of people with these rights. I hope that assurance will help the noble Earl. If I may add a further point, I must repeat that this is a Bill for the first stage legislation only, and that when one comes to the second stage legislation it will not be without use to know that certain people are interested in certain ways, even if one must not attach too much importance to entries on a voluntary basis.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am very glad my noble friend has raised this point, but I feel a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Lord opposite in trying to answer it at this stage. But I imagine that all those matters which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has talked about, and all the details which my noble friend has asked for, will appear in the regulations as and when they are produced;

765
that those are the regulations dealt with in Clause 18 of the Bill; and that therefore, if they do not appear satisfactory when they come along, they can be prayed against on a Negative Resolution. If that is so, possibly we may have to wait to deal with the matter in great detail until the time arrives when the regulations are allowed. Am I correct in thinking this?
LORD MITCHISON: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. I agree.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I also appreciate the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. The object of this was to try to find out in advance of the regulations coming out what was going to be put in them.
Two things still puzzle me on this. As I understand it from the noble Lord, the registration authorities are obliged to fill the register with as much information as is reasonably possible. Is there a difference between their being required to do this and their being authorised to do it? The noble Lord said, if I understood him correctly, that the authorities would not be told that they must put information on their register, but if under the Bill they are required to do so I should have thought that was slightly at variance with what the noble Lord has said. I should have thought his explanation was that under any regulation in this Bill the registration authority may be authorised to do so.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may speak again, it is intended to leave to the regulations what kind of entries the registration authorities will be required to make and what kind of entries they may make if they so choose. To take an absurd instance, they might be required to enter rights of grouse shooting, or be authorised to enter rights of playing clock golf. I am deliberately taking a slightly absurd example so that no one should make deductions from it. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that one will have to look at the regulations when they come out before one can do more than give the vaguest indication of what is intended to be done about this. I hope that I have met the noble Viscount's point.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: If that is so, may we hope that between now and
766
the time for making the regulations, the opportunity will be taken to discuss these matters of detail with the various parties outside this House interested in these matters.
LORD MITCHISON: There are a great many things that might be put into these regulations. I think the best thing I can say to the noble Viscount is that I have noted with attention what he has said, and I am quite certain that those who will be engaged in administering this Act, whether centrally or in county councils and county boroughs, will have noted it, too. They would be foolish, indeed, if they neglected to consult any persons interested upon any reasonable matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: I understand that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Committee stage on which we are now engaged should be adjourned at about 7 o'clock. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL
7.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Snow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Merthyr in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Expenses, accounts etc. of Research Councils]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BRIDGES: I wish to speak on Clause 2 of the Bill, and I have two points to which I would draw attention. They are both points of practical administration and, I believe, of considerable importance to the working of the new

767
organisation, and particularly to the part of it concerned with nuclear physics. I am, and have been since its inception eight years ago, Chairman of the Governing Body of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science, a body which is to be absorbed into the new organisation. But I do not believe that the fact that I have held this position need deter me from drawing attention to two points which I think are of real practical significance, although they have no Party political connotation. The first point concerns the arrangements for financial control and delegation, and this arises on Clause 2 (1) of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will allow me for a few minutes to sketch in the background of what I have to say.
The National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science—called, in short, by the horrid title of NIRNS—was set up in 1957 for two reasons. The first and much the more important reason was that the increasing size and cost of the apparatus needed in nuclear research made it quite impossible to supply the larger and major types of such apparatus to individual universities. In future the universities would have to share these larger appliances, and a new organisation was needed to supply such facilities for British universities generally. The second reason was that it was thought the time had come when the main responsibility for fundamental research into nuclear physics could with advantage be removed from the Atomic Energy Authority, which has a very wide ambit of duties, and placed in a separate organisation. NIRNS thus had two parents—the universities and the Atomic Energy Authority; and both parents were represented on the Governing Body.
This parentage had two consequences. The first is that the senior and larger of the two NIRNS laboratories—the Rutherford Laboratory—is very closely connected with the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell. It is next door to it, and all the original staff of NIRNS came from the A.E.R.E. The second consequence is much more important, but it is also much more difficult to describe briefly. The NIRNS laboratories are not just Government research establishments: they are establishments set up to provide univer-
768
sity scientists with the sort of facilities, the sort of background and conditions for work which they would expect to find in their own university, but for the fact that the facilities in question are so big and so expensive that they have to be provided centrally.
The NIRNS laboratories are thus inter-penetrated with university staff working on their own research problems, alongside staff from NIRNS and from the Atomic Energy Authority. University physicists take part in the work of NIRNS laboratories at all levels. They are instrumental in deciding which experiment should be undertaken; they helped in the design of NIRNS; and, indeed, the Director of the laboratory in the North is on leave from his university and is continuing to teach there. This kind of close connection between the universities and a central research establishment is crucial to the success of NIRNS—it is, indeed, the essence of its nature.
This close linkage between the universities and an important research establishment financed by central Government is clearly of great value, more particularly in these days when universities are expanding rapidly and the volume of scientific research is also expanding. I believe that this linkage has been achieved in the NIRNS laboratories to a far greater extent than in any other comparable institution in this country This is something which I am sure gladdens the heart of the Minister for Education and Science, who commands both sides covered in the linkage.
From all this, your Lordships will see that one of the chief tasks of the NIRNS board and staff has been to devise and administer an organisation which is accepted by university scientists as a place in which they can do their work in the same sort of way as they would carry out research in their own universities. It has been our duty to see that their work is not impeded or frustrated by unnecessary difficulties, and I believe that that has been accomplished with considerable success. The NIRNS staff are entitled to great credit for what has been done.
But this result could not have been achieved if the conditions for financial and administrative control of the NIRNS establishments had not been very flexible

769
and unfussy. Of course, NIRNS, like every other body which depends on public finance, has its annual tussle with the Treasury as to how much money it is going to get in the ensuing year and in the year after. And of course NIRNS, like other people, rarely gets what it hopes for; but that is the common fate of all mankind. But after the yearly tussle was over, NIRNS was left with quite considerable freedom as to the details of the way in which the year's money was spent.
From the inception of NIRNS until to-day, the A.E.A. has been the body which has played the major part in giving NIRNS such authorities for finance and administration as we needed. The A.E.A., of course, understood our problems very well, and they have kept in close touch with us on all matters with which we needed help and guidance. Our lines of communication were short and decisions could be obtained easily.
Of course one feels personal regret at having to part from an overlord who has been as helpful as the A.E.A. has been, but I accept entirely the logic of the argument implicit in the Bill which puts nuclear physics under the Science Research Council. It is obviously right that research into nuclear physics would be grouped with the other branches of scientific research for the assessment of the global needs of all forms of scientific research taken together, and for the subsequent, and no doubt painful, process of deciding how that global sum should be divided up among the various claimants. That is the principle embodied in the Trend Report and in this Bill, and I accept it wholeheartedly.
But the point on which I feel some anxiety and concern—and I think many members of the governing body of NIRNS share my feelings—is the procedure and processes of administrative and financial control under the new set-up. It is clear that the lines of communication will be much longer than they are to-day. After April 1 the NIRNS laboratories will come under a Nuclear Physics Board which will report to the Science Research Council; the Science Research Council will report to the Minister of Education and Science, and the Ministry of Education and Science has to report to the Treasury. That is a long line: and if the people
770
forming each link in the chain show only a modicum of intelligent curiosity about the proposals submitted, it may take a long time before action can be started. I rather distrust these long lines of communication, which often result in delays and a certain remoteness between the operating people and the high-ups who give the authority, all of which leads to frustration.
My Lords, may I quote one line of poetry? It is the first line of Oliver Goldsmith's poem The Traveller.
"Remote, unfriended, melancholy, slow"
"Remote"—well, that is obvious. "Slow"—that is the time taken to get the answers. "Unfriended" is the feeling that you do not know the people you are dealing with, and "melancholy" would be described in our modern phraseology as "loss of morale". I hope, my Lords, you will not think this too frivolous, but it does express the type of administration which we all want to avoid.
Your Lordships will ask, "What remedy do you produce?" I will venture to suggest one. The first essential is that the Science Research Council should be sufficiently strongly staffed to be given very wide delegated powers to settle day-to-day questions of finance and administration, and particularly, perhaps, authority to appoint staff without all these questions having to drift right up the line and the answers to come down again.
We have made enquiries as to what the position will be after April 1 about delegated authorities. The answers which we have been given are not very precise, but they fill some of us with a good deal of despondency. It seems it is intended to administer both NIRNS and the other research establishments on a pretty tight rein. If that is done, I am afraid it will go far to destroy the method of working which has been established in the NIRNS laboratory, which has had so much to do with establishing the right relationship with university scientists. As I see it, these laboratories to-day are in essence, and they will remain, an extension of university work, and I really see no reason why the mere transfer of NIRNS's staff from the A.E.A. to the Science Research Council should involve any lessening of the powers which NIRNS has hitherto enjoyed in these matters. There is no

771
need to fear extravagance and waste. The demands on the manpower and funds available will always be so great as to induce a very real sense of responsibility in those charged with spending the money.
My Lords, I hope I have not spent too long in making this point, but I believe that the tendency to impose a rather rigid and detailed control on scientific research establishments, and in particular the NIRNS laboratory, is wrong and would do considerable damage. It is true that Clause 2 (1) of the Bill does not specify the manner in which the Secretary of State is to exercise his financial and administrative control—it leaves him quite free—but I do ask the noble Lord who is to reply, most urgently to give a clear assurance that placing NIRNS under the Science Research Council will not be used to impose a more rigid bureaucratic system of control in finance and administration.
7.16 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two, but I wish to say a few words in support of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I have an interest in this matter, and I feel a certain responsibility about it, though I am talking from a different standpoint from that of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—one might say from the position which I used to occupy on the other side of the fence at Harwell. When I was Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority I was a strong advocate of the view that the National Institute—the "NIRNS" as it is called—should cease to be financed through the Authority.
Research in high energy physics, although it makes use of complicated and expensive machines, is essentially basic research, and has ceased to have a direct application to the work of the Authority. It belongs much more to the ambit of a Scientific Research Council, which has long been advocated by many people, including myself, and which is now being set up. So I urged before the Trend Committee, and through other channels, that NIRNS should be taken off the Atomic Energy vote and put on the vote of whatever Department became responsible for the Science Research Council. This is now being done and I still support this solution.
772
But the link between the Atomic Energy Authority and its offspring, the Rutherford Laboratory, has been and will remain very close, and as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges has suggested, there is an exciting prospect of the closest working collaboration between the various organisations which now form a complex around Oxford. This includes, of course, the Physics Department of Oxford University. It includes the Research Group of the A.E. Authority with its three laboratories, one at Harwell for nuclear physics, chemistry, and so on; one at Culham for plasma physics, and the other at Wantage for isotope research, and it includes the Rutherford Laboratory. The successful collaboration among these institutions of pure and applied physics in related, but distinct, fields requires great flexibility and a certain parity in conditions of service between the scientists and their supporting staff who, one would hope, will move freely within this complex.
If I had felt that the transfer of the NIRNS away from the Atomic Energy Authority to other administrative and financial control would involve comparative disadvantages of any kind, administrative or financial, for the staff of the National Institute, I should have qualified my support for the transfer. Therefore, even at what is in every sense a very late hour, I want to support the two propositions which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has put forward.
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: I should like, with the Committee's permission, to say something by way of support of my noble friend Lord Bridges and my noble friend Lord Sherfield. But, first of all, may I say that I hope Members of the Committee will forgive me for not having been present at the Second Reading debate on February 4. This was for medical—or, rather, for surgical—reasons. I might add that if your Lord-ships are concerned with any undue movement at this Box, this is due to the fact that my surgeon tells me that, if I am unable to sit down, then I must take as much exercise as possible—that is to say, walk or jump up and down; at any rate, not to stand still. On this Bill I am not standing still, and I should like to take this opportunity of endorsing generally what my noble friend Lord Caldecote

773
said at the time of Second Reading; and also, as I say, to support my noble friends on the Cross-Benches. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Snow, will bear with me for one moment. I think, incidentally, that we should to-day take this opportunity of congratulating him on his imaginative use of heraldry in the design of his Coat of Arms—which, with its cats as supporters, will, I am sure, greatly please the colleges of advanced technology.
With regard to Clause 2, I should like to say this. Having learnt something of the work of the Atomic Energy Authority and the National Institute for Research and Nuclear Science during my year as Parliamentary Secretary, and while certainly I am in favour of the Bill as a whole—I welcomed it generally when, last December, we had our debate on Technological Development—none the less I think there is a great deal in the plea by my noble friend Lord Bridges that the placing of NIRNS under the Science Research Council should not lead to too rigid a bureaucratic control over the Institute's finances and administration. Personally, I am doubtful whether this kind of establishment should be impeded at all in its work by what is sometimes described as the straitjacket of the Civil Service.
There is much in what the noble Lord has said, too, in regard to the very close relations between NIRNS and its two parents, the universities and the Atomic Energy Authority, both of which are represented on its Governing Body. The coming and going and transfer of staff between the Rutherford Laboratory, the Atomic Energy Authority and the universities means, I think, that the people concerned should not be considered purely as civil servants. The NIRNS laboratories are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, just Government research establishments. They must be closely allied to the universities, whose staffs have indeed penetrated into them. Undoubtedly the excellent work accomplished by NIRNS could not have been achieved if the conditions for its finance and administrative control had not been reasonably flexible.
Hitherto, as Members of the Committee have heard, the A.E.A. has been the body which has played the major part in this control, and there may well be some cause for—I would not say alarm,
774
but certainly for concern, at the some-what elaborate new chain of command running through the Nuclear Physics Board to the new Science Research Council and eventually to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, while the Atomic Energy Authority itself, which is so closely concerned with the work of the Institute and is physically so close to it, is responsible to quite another Ministry—that is to say, the Ministry of Technology. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to give an assurance that the Institute, and perhaps even certain similar research establishments, will not be administered on too tight a rein. Some research establishments, it is true, are happy to function within the Civil Service, but I am doubtful whether these establishments would be. I may say just a further word about this when we come to one of the Schedules to the Bill, but those, at any rate, briefly, are the reasons why I should like to support my noble friends in regard to Clause 2. As I say, I shall probably make certain related and perhaps slightly more detailed comments when we come to Schedule 3.
7.25 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of TECHNOLOGY (Lord Snow): I have listened with great attention to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Sherfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborougb. I find it one of my more unpleasant duties as a Minister not to accept at once any recommendation proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, unpleasant partly because anything he says always has much substance, and partly because any person in public service of my generation holds him in esteem as a kind of hero, as one of the great public servants of our time. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has been Chairman of the National Institute for Research and Nuclear Science (that is the real title of this horrible abbreviation known as NIRNS) since its inauguration in 1956. He has presided over its affairs with great distinction, and if anyone needs justification for that, then what he described as "one of these curious happenings", his tenure of office as Chairman of the Board of Governors of NIRNS, provides complete justification for it. I want first of all to thank him publicly, on behalf of Her Majesty's

775
Government, for what he has done in that capacity.
I think the noble Lord said—at least, he implied—that he was a supporter of the Bill. That gives us great cheer; and I gather (I think that in saying this I am not taking his words in vain) that we have his agreement to the two main purposes of the Bill. The first of those two main purposes is to make possible the transfer to the Ministry of Technology of the industrial functions of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I think this is now common ground. The other is, in accordance with the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Reorganisation of the Civil Service—that is, the Trend Report—to make possible the creation of two new Research Councils, to bring within their authority certain specialised scientific research institutions now outside the Research Council system, and to place all the Research Councils under the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who will finance them in the light of the advice of a Council for Scientific Policy. NIRNS is one of the specialised institutions which is thus brought within the Research Council system. There are others, like the Royal Observatory and the National Oceanographic Institute.
Reorganisation on these lines, with the exception of the creation of the Ministry of Technology, about which some words have been exchanged across the Floor of this House, was the declared policy of the present Opposition, before they left office. The reason for making these changes is that up to now we have had an organisation which has grown up piecemeal and haphazard. Research Councils were entitled to go to the Treasury for their money. They did not receive it through the Lord President, who had only general political responsibility for their affairs. NIRNS got its money through the Atomic Energy Authority, though its main purpose was, and is, to provide facilities for university research workers. No one authority was charged to consider how funds should be distributed among all these research institutions, and this was determined in actual practice by the outcome of separate decisions, taken in different parts of Government, without any collective assessment of the relative scientific importance of the subjects concerned.
776
This system, I think, could not be seriously justified. It worked when the total expenditure was small, but the expenditure of the present Research Councils alone has grown from £3 million in 1945-46 to £38 million in 1963-64. There has been a real difference in scale. It is the main purpose of this Bill to alter this system, and to have four Research Councils, which together cover all these activities, and to have one Minister who is responsible for the whole four—and, since their research is closely related to that of the universities, it is natural that this Minister should be the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
We believe that these changes are desirable and necessary, but they cannot be made without some alteration in the status and powers of existing authorities. Some of these changes may be inconvenient; and we know just as well as do noble Lords who have spoken that it is extremely difficult to make absolutely satisfactory decisions on all these matters. It is one of those horrible decisions of administration where no one solution is absolutely right and where you can argue quite strongly for one of three or four. By putting the work of NIRNS under the Science Research Council we not only bring together nuclear physics and other scientific research in universities but we unify the control of support for nuclear physics itself. Responsibility at the moment is divided between NIRNS and the D.S.I.R., which gives large grants to universities and is also responsible for our relations with CERN, which is at Geneva and is another of these alphabetical institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked that I should assure him that the absorption of NIRNS into the Science Research Council would not be used to impose a more rigid bureaucratic system of control in finance and administration, including the power to make appointments. I will say a word about finance. The present position is that NIRNS have delegated powers (within their annual estimated provision) up to £25,000 for capital expenditure; the A.E.A. have powers for up to £100,000; and above that figure my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Treasury must authorise new capital schemes. The Finance Member of the A.E.A. is a member of

777
the NIRNS board, with the result that consultation with A.E.A. on sums between £25,000 and £100,000 has in most cases been formal.
D.S.I.R. has delegated powers, up to £50,000 only, for capital schemes. The S.R.C.'s powers will not be less than that. The Government are considering the level of financial delegation for the S.R.C. I will convey to my right honourable friend the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other noble Lords on this point, and these views will clearly command great respect. It is partly on the level of that delegation that easy administration will rest. But I think it reasonable to point out that, in practice, the difference between these two levels of delegation is not in reality very great. In 1963-64 the capital expenditure of NIRNS amounted to £1-6 million. Of this, about £1 million was on schemes over the £100,000 limit. These required Treasury approval. The remainder, all schemes except four, fell below the £50,000 limit. The four schemes which cost below £100,000 and more than £50,000 amounted in total to £250,000. We do not think a change in procedure relating to this small proportion, some 15 per cent. or 16 per cent., of the Institute's expenditure would make any serious difference in the relation of NIRNS to the Universities, or to the effectiveness of their work. Many large Departments carry on their work successfully with delegated powers of less than £50,000 for capital items.
Whatever the limit of delegation may be—and I repeat that the noble Lord's representations will be carried at once to my right honourable friend—it is certainly the case that the Science Research Council will wish to consider the scientific merits of the large capital schemes of one part of nuclear physics in relation to the rest of nuclear physics and the requirements of other fields of science. This, I am sure, is good administration. To have various bodies supporting different bits of nuclear physics cannot be right. That is what we are seeking to secure by this reorganisation. It is an inevitable consequence, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of all people, will understand this; but it will slightly reduce the independence of one part of the existing somewhat
778
chaotic system for supporting nuclear physics research.
Now, my Lords, I will say a word about staff. NIRNS has enjoyed a degree of freedom up to now not enjoyed by the Research Councils. These powers were given after long argument with the Atomic Energy Authority, which has much bigger responsibilities and, in general, functions on a commercial basis in large parts of its organisation. Here I cannot assure the noble Lord that similar powers to those of the Atomic Energy Authority will be given to the Science Research Council. But let me try to give a little encouragement and refer to the example of the Scientific Civil Service. Specific approval is needed for the creation of posts in the top ranks of the Scientific Civil Service. I remember having mild disputes with Lord Bridges's former Department over just this matter. It seems to me a pleasing, poetic irony that we somehow appear to have changed points of view.
I do not believe that with sensible persons trying to reach agreement this necessarily has in practice inhibited the work of the Research Councils or led to fussy and bureaucratic control. My impression is that the Civil Service Commission is in many ways more flexible in these matters than most large employers or large organisations, and it has become more flexible since I left it—although, I hope, not as a consequence. I sometimes think that many scientists—and I agree with this—are frightened of the words "Civil Service". If we called it "Anti-Civil Service" or "Un-Civil Service" they would probably be much happier. I think that with good will and sense there will be no substantial loss in flexibility; and it is with regret, therefore, that I am afraid I must, on behalf of the Government, resist the Amendment.
7.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think at the moment we are discussing any Amendment at all. We are debating whether the clause stand part. The noble Lord started his speech by paying a great and well-deserved tribute to my noble friend Lord Bridges, who, as he said, spoke with great authority and whose views command great respect. I listened with the closest attention to the speech of the noble Lord, as, indeed, to earlier

779
speeches made in this debate; and I must say, having heard only this debate on this matter, I cannot regard the noble Lord's answer as in the least degree satisfactory. He told us a great deal about how this Bill was intended to operate, and at one moment I began to wonder whether he thought we were again back on the Second Reading debate. The point is this: the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has stressed the need for conditions of financial control over the National Institute to be both flexible and not fussy.
I am not going to discuss the question of how much money should be made available to this Institute in the course of a particular year—different views may be taken on that by different people; one recognises that with regard to the allocation of funds it is perfectly possible to have different points of view. I am concerned, in view of what my noble friend Lord Bridges has said, that the National Institute should have a very considerable degree of freedom in the use of the funds which it has been decided to allocate to the Institute. Having listened to what the noble Lord has said, I must confess that I am by no means satisfied that that will be the case. Nor, indeed, has the noble Lord, Lord Snow, met the point which I thought was very powerfully put by my noble friend Lord Bridges, that it will take, because of the number of people who have to be consulted, a great deal longer to get decisions. He gave no assurance of any kind with regard to that. So far as the staff is concerned, it may be that that can operate despite the new restrictions imposed. But in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has said I would ask the noble Lord to undertake to give further consideration to this matter and make a further statement about it at a later stage of the Bill.
If it is really certain—and we have the noble Lord's authority for believing it is—that the good results achieved by this Institute will not continue to be achieved if the financial control does not remain flexible and not fussy, then I regard this as most serious. I assure the noble Lord that I listened to every word he said, and the fears raised in my mind by what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said have in no way been allayed. I do not think that we want to pursue this matter to-night, but I hope that, with the
780
leave of the Committee, the noble Lord will say that he will give further consideration to this and make a statement with regard to it at a later stage of the measure. Because, if not, it may be necessary for us to consider whether we should table an Amendment to try to preserve the efficiency of this Institute which depends, so we are told, on its having a considerable degree of flexibility with regard to its financial control.
LORD SNOW: I will promise to bring the representations made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and other noble Lords to the attention of my right honourable friend and I will undertake that I or my noble friend Lord Bowden will make a further statement on the matter at a later stage of the Bill.
7.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER of STATE for EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Bowden): May I add one point which may relieve some of the anxiety which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges and the noble and learned Viscount? The proposals for the administration of NIRNS have by no means been definitely settled. The only thing which is clear is that a direct link between NIRNS and the Treasury or between NIRNS and the A.E.A. must be severed, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has so lucidly explained to us. The decision as to whether NIRNS and the A.E.A. should come under the main Science Research Council was taken after very considerable debate. We decided that the Bill allowed us sufficient flexibility in the way it was phrased to enable us, if it proved that this proposal was unworkable, to make a change by administrative action without seeking further legislative powers. To my mind, this is an important safeguard.
The particular questions to which our attention has been drawn have been very much in the minds of all of us. So far as I can see, a degree of flexibility in the administration of funds can certainly be left with NIRNS. The total sums which are at their absolute discretion are likely to be insignificantly changed, if changed at all. Clearly, in the minds of all of us, the success of this Institute depends upon a degree of autonomy which has not been currently or commonly available to Government establishments. I should like to

781
take the opportunity of assuring noble Lords that we shall make certain that the affairs of the establishment are in no way impeded by administrative red tape if we can possible help it.
I have known NIRNS for many years; I know its directors and have worked at Harwell, and I have a personal knowledge of the difficulties with which research people have to struggle if they are constrained within a financial strait-jacket which the Treasury and the Civil Service as a whole are apt to regard as normal. The efficiency of the establishment and the morale of the staff must obviously be more important to us than anything else, and I assure noble Lords that this particular matter is one to which our attention will be directed almost continuously.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With the leave of the Committee, I would express my gratitude to the noble Lord for his useful support for the case ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. What we should like to know is the decision of the Government, in the light of the need, which the noble Lord has said he recognises, for the independence of this body. I am not asking for it now, because the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has said that he would give it to us and I do not want to pursue the matter. I only hope that, when we get the statement, it will show not only that these facts are recognised and acknowledged, but also the way in which this flexibility and freedom from control in the conduct of their own affairs will be preserved to the Institute.
LORD SNOW: I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount will wish me to go beyond the undertaking I have already given.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3:
Transitional Provisions on Redistribution of Activities of Existing Organisations
4.—(1) Section 2 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1959 (which enables pension schemes of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to extend to staff of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science), and, without prejudice to any power
782
to amend the scheme, any provision included in a scheme by virtue of that section, shall continue to apply to officers and other persons employed by the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science who on the transfer date are by paragraph 1 above transferred to the employment of the Science Research Council, and shall have effect in relation to them as if their employment with the Council were employment with the Institute.
7.47 p.m.
LORD BRIDGES LORD BRIDGES had given Notice of two Amendments to paragraph 4 (1), the first being after "apply to" to insert "(a)," and the second, after "Science Research Council," to insert:
"and
(b) officers and other persons taken into the employment of the Science Research Council within two years after the transfer date and employed by them on activities taken over from the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science".
The noble Lord said: When I spoke a few minutes ago, I said that one of the parents of NIRNS was the A.E.A. Many of the NIRNS staff were recruited from A.E.A. Indeed, unless that fund of experience had been drawn from, I do not think that NIRNS could ever have been set up. Not unnaturally the staff arrangements at NIRNS, as regards both pay and pensions, were copied from A.E.A., and until now have been negotiated by a machinery parallel to that which exists at A.E.A. Given the fact that the Rutherford Laboratory was built on a site adjoining Harwell and took over many of its staff from the A.E.R.E. at Harwell and shared, and still shares, many of its common services, any other arrangement would have been unworkable.
Under paragraph 4 (1) of the Schedule, it is laid down that any officer of NIRNS who is serving NIRNS on April 1, 1965, and belongs to the A.E.A. pensions scheme may continue to be a member of this scheme; but no person recruited after April 1 to the Science Research Council or to one of the bodies which is under it may join the A.E.A. pension scheme. These new entrants will have to belong to a scheme which will apply to all new recruits of the S.R.C., and which is affiliated to the Civil Service superannuation scheme, although the individuals will not themselves be civil servants. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the comparative merits of the A.E.A.

783
scheme and the Civil Service superannuation scheme for a body like NIRNS. I think that if one takes transferability to universities, perhaps there is not much in it, but when one takes transferability to industry or to and from the A.E.A. then there is no doubt that the A.E.A. pension scheme is very much more suitable. But I do not wish to argue this point in detail because, like so many pension points, it is extremely abstruse and it is apt to make people angry without their ever coming to any agreement on it.
I will confine myself to one simple practical point. The Rutherford Laboratory at Chilton, which is next door to Harwell, recruits many of the same type of staff as the Harwell staff. To give one example, the Rutherford Laboratory employs several hundred technicians known as experimental assistants, skilled men who install, handle and maintain the very complicated machinery. North Berkshire is not a predominantly industrial area, and recruitment to these grades is not easy. It is estimated that, allowing for wastage and turnover, it may be necessary for the Rutherford Laboratory to recruit about 50 of these technicians and other supporting staff each year. The Atomic Research Establishment next door may recruit about 300 each year of the same type. Obviously the two establishments ought to continue to be able to recruit on the same terms. But under the Bill they will not be able to do so, and therefore the Rutherford Laboratory will be at a serious handicap in recruiting.
We have pressed to be allowed to continue the A.E.A. pension scheme. I am bound to say that there has been no real discussion on the point. I do not say that there have not been cases where the matter was talked about at meetings, but I do not think the NIRNS staff or the NIRNS Board have ever known the conclusive reasons why this cannot be done. The line of argument has rather been that this has been settled, and that it is absolutely impossible. Indeed, one gets the impression in certain quarters that the A.E.A. pension scheme is regarded and treated as though it were a sort of contagious plague to be kept at a distance at all costs. I find it difficult to see how this makes sense. The A.E.A., which
784
until April 1 is our immediate overlord, is going to keep its existing pension scheme. True enough, it is going to be put under another Ministry, the Ministry of Technology, while the existing NIRNS staff go to the Ministry of Education and Science. But is there any real reason why the change in overlordship to a different Ministry should mean in one case that the pension can remain unaltered, and in the other case that it has to be through another Board?
The group of staff associations which represent all the staffs coming under the S.R.C. have given their views. They would like the NIRNS staff to keep the A.E.A. pension scheme, both for existing staff and new entrants. They would like the other staffs in the Scientific Research Council to keep their existing scheme, which is the Civil Service type. So they would not object to the scheme being allowed to continue. In my previous incarnations I have not always found myself agreeing with the staff associations. It is pleasant to-day to find myself agreeing with them, and I can see no convincing reason why it should be regarded as essential that all the staffs under the S.R.C. should have the same pension scheme. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that of the staffs of the S.R.C, as they will be set up on April 1, two-thirds will be NIRNS staff and one-third will come from other quarters. So that the majority will be made to transfer to the pension scheme of the minority.
I should like to mention one other point. I had a strong impression when Her Majesty's Ministers took office last October that they had a desire to facilitate transfers between industry, the Civil Service and other public services and the universities. Indeed, many people were brought into the Civil Service from other places, and I think difficulties were found in bringing about these exchanges because of difficulties in pension. It is all to the good to bring these people in, and it is quite wrong that the pension should be an obstacle. I had a sort of impression that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to make things easier in this respect. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Snow, speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, said that he could hold out only one ray of hope, and that was that he was hoping to iron out some of these difficulties between pension schemes within a year or so. Therefore,

785
one hopes that this difficulty might be overcome in a year or two. That is something, of course. But what about the immediate future? How are we going to face, or how are the NIRNS Laboratories going to face, these difficulties owing to the different standards of remuneration?
I hope that I have not spoken too strongly about this point, but I feel it is a very odd position that we are being driven into, and for the life of me I cannot see why it is necessary. I am essentially a person who, because of the previous life I have led and the jobs I have filled, has always looked to find ways of solving difficulties without making it too awkward for those with whom I have a temporary difference of view to accept the proposal I am putting forward.
I have a suggestion to put forward which seems to me very moderate, and indeed, sensible, and which I hope may be accepted. This suggestion, which is embodied in the Amendment, is that the Bill should be modified to include an interim period of two years—which corresponds with the period during which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, hopes to bring about an alteration to the general pension schemes—during which it should be possible to recruit new entrants to the Nuclear Physics Division of the S.R.C. on existing NIRNS terms and on existing AEA pension terms. This would provide for further thought to be given to a problem which no doubt has many complexities and perplexities. I hope that this will also avoid the absurd situation and the unnecessary difficulties which would otherwise arise at Harwell, where two large Government Departments, living cheek by jowl, and having hitherto enjoyed the same conditions of service, and, moreover, competing for the same type of staff, would be forced as a result of the Bill now before the House, as from April 1, to abandon their practice of recruitment on common terms and be compelled to recruit staff of the same qualifications and similar duties, but on different terms. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 28, after second ("to") insert "(a)") .— (Lord Bridges.)
LORD SHERFIELD: I rise to support this Amendment. As I said earlier, I should have been less enthusiastic about
786
the transfer of the NIRNS from the Atomic Energy Authority to other control if I had thought that this transfer would bring any financial disadvantage to the staff of the National Institute. It is true, of course, that the pension rights of the existing staff will be preserved; but for the new entrants a disparity will be created. I can well guess at the reasons for this. I think I know tolerably well the point of view of what perhaps I may loosely call "the authorities", and, of course, it is inspired by a laudable concern for the public purse: that where disparity exists you should never lift up the worse off, but should always drag down the better off, even though the advantages which are to be taken away were given for good reasons and are well justified. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has proposed a reasonable compromise in this particular case, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
7.59 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to say a few words on the problem of the staff, which is obviously most important, because the new arrangements will not work unless there is the greatest good will on the part of all the people who are actually working in the laboratories and doing the research about which we are all so concerned. I am interested in this because my own Association, the Association of University Teachers, has among its members some of those who work in these laboratories. My Association also has close ties with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, and from that point of view, too, I get some sort of inkling of the situation, which obviously, from some points of view, is a rather sticky one and will call for a great deal of sympathy and understanding—which I am sure it will get from my noble friend Lord Snow and my noble friend Lord Bowden. But it is not always quite easy to carry the administrators below with you on occasions of this sort, and I hope that there will be a great deal of energy and determination in carrying that out.
The business of the pension is typical of this sort of trouble. It is obvious that if you keep two different classes of people working in NIRNS, one of them with rather more favourable conditions than the new entrants, you are not likely to get the harmony which you need. I therefore support the proposal of the

787
noble Lord, Lord Bridges, which will at any rate give a period of time in which conciliation can take place and people will be able to turn round. Actually, there is not a great deal of difference, when one considers the expenditure involved, because the contributory scheme under which the NIRNS people get their pension covers a longer period of time than the period which covers Civil Service salaries. So the additional benefit which the NIRNS people get through the Authority paying into the fund something extra, which the ordinary civil servants do not get, is to some extent equalised. I do not think that there is as much difference here as has been made out.
There are quite a number of aspects of this matter which need to be looked at rather carefully. The NIRNS people are not civil servants. Many of the scientists who work in some of the other Departments are civil servants. Some of them, as in the Nature Conservancy, who are not civil servants, nevertheless have many of the rights and privileges of the Civil Service. It seems to me important that the whole of this business should be kept as flexible as possible.
The problem has been raised as to how recruitment should take place. There has been a suggestion that recruitment should take place through the Civil Service Commission. Obviously—and I think there has been a ruling on this—the new Research Departments must be given the right to recruit their own staff. On the other hand, there are great advantages in recruiting through the Civil Service Commissioners, particularly from the point of view of interchangeability and movement inside the whole organisation. So obviously there is a great deal to be said for using the Civil Service Commission for recruitment. The staff business is just one of the matters which arises in this connection, and it needs to be looked at very carefully and very sympathetically. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that the organisations which enrol these civil servants among their membership, like the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, are anxious to be helpful in regard to these matters, and I trust the necessary atmosphere of sympathy and understanding will pervade the discussions which clearly will have to take place.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: I should again like to support my noble friend on the Cross-Bench on this point, and particularly on the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has put before us. The reasons, as we have heard, are similar to those which were given in discussing Clause 2, but on this occasion the noble Lord has put down an Amendment, and I think it is a very reasonable one. Indeed, in a way I am sorry that the noble Lord did not go further, and that he has made the compromise which he has. I should have thought that if he really believed that the staff of NIRNS should benefit from the rather looser pension rights of the A.E.A. in order to enable an easier transfer from the Institute to the Authority and, maybe, back and forth from the universities and industry, then he ought not to have advocated, as he does in this Amendment, that the present employees of NIRNS, and those recruited in the future, should be allowed to continue with the A.E.A. pension scheme for only two years.
A very good case for permitting NIRNS to continue to benefit indefinitely from the A.E.A. pension scheme was made in another place, where the Bill was rushed through with somewhat undue haste, and certain honourable Members protested about that. As was stated there, it was agreed, I think, in 1958 that the A.E.A. conditions of service should apply to the Institute, which has in fact adopted the A.E.A. conditions, except that it has a separate Whitley Council. On this point, I do not consider that the Under-Secretary in another place really gave a very adequate answer. He said—I think it is in column 366, Commons Official Report of the Committee stage on January 20—that the difficulty was that if the Government endorsed for new entrants the particular conditions appertaining at the moment to the Institute they would in fact be perpetuating an anomaly. My Lords, I wonder where in fact the anomaly really lies? It might equally be possible to say that the anomaly lay in the fact that the Institute was not being treated as generously as its sister establishment across the way. Personally, I think that there lies the anomaly.

789
The Minister in another place also said that the Government were anxious to have transferability all the way through between the Research Councils and Government Departments. But, surely, in this case it is just as important, if not considerably more important, that there should be ease of transferability between the A.E.A., the NIRNS and the universities, to say nothing of industry, rather than purely as between Government Departments. As I think I said in regard to Clause 2, the people in some research stations (for example, those of the D.S.I.R.) like to think of themselves as civil servants. But this certainly does not apply to those employed by the A.E.A., by NIRNS, by the universities or, of course, by industry.
In the debate on Technological Development on December 2, it was generally agreed (I think the noble Lord, Lord Snow, was with us on this, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Todd) on both sides of your Lordships' House that everything possible should be done to bring Government stations, universities and industry even closer together, and that this would pay dividends. But personally, I do not think that dropping this favourable pensions scheme in respect of NIRNS alone would have this effect. It might bring NIRNS closer to other Government Departments and Research Councils, but I do not think it would keep them as close to the A.E.A., the universities, and to industry, as they are at present. This really is the old problem as to who should be in step with whom.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has made his point, and was ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept his modified and very moderate proposal. I cannot believe that it would be impossible for the Government to meet him on this point. The A.E.A., which will continue its close association with NIRNS until April 1, is going to keep its existing pensions scheme; and even if it is now to go under another Ministry, why should the fact that the two organisations will now come under different Ministries mean that in one case the pensions scheme should be retained and in the other, next door, it should not? This does not seem to me to make any sense at all, and I am in-
790
terested to hear that the staff associations agree on this point.
I am therefore very glad to support my noble friend in his Amendment and that the Amendment should include this reference to an interim period of at least two years, during which it would be possible to recruit new entrants under existing conditions, so that there may be time for further thought to be given to a problem which, in its way, is quite complex and, in my view, very important.
8.10 p.m.
LORD SNOW: As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, this is a problem of bewildering complexity. If you keep NIRNS in step with the A.E.A. you automatically get it out of step with the Science Research Council. The Government have agreed that existing members of NIRNS shall continue on their existing contracts of service, and the point at issue is the question of newly recruited staff appointed by the Science Research Council as soon as it comes into being. The terms of service in the A.E.A. are in fact very similar to those of the Civil Service, except at the highest levels. The A.E.A. pension scheme is contributory and the staff contribute 6 per cent. of salary. To compensate this they get 7 per cent. more pay which, after tax, produces net pay substantially the same as in the Civil Service. Your Lordships must not have the idea that there are gigantic disparities, however these things are arranged. Because the gross pay is 7 per cent. more, the pensions, based on terminal salary, are higher, too, by that proportion. This will be the only substantial difference as regards salary or pension between A.E.A. and the Science Research Council, which will offer terms in fact closely aligned to those in the Civil Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, argues that because of this difference the Science Research Council will find it difficult to recruit in competition with the A.E.A. at Harwell. There is force in that, but the other side is this: the Science Research Council will have an integrated staff. Though this staff will not be within the Civil Service, its pay and conditions will be broadly aligned with those of the Civil Service and the other Research Councils. If we take the two new Research Councils together, we find that half their staff are now on Civil

791
Service terms. We find it hard to see justification for giving to a proportion of new entrants to the Council's staff pension terms which are better than those of other entrants at the same date. To do so would make a disparity with other new entrants to Research Councils and would be difficult to justify on the doctrine of fair comparison with outside employment established by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service.
When we consider recruitment in competition with Harwell, I think that here, since the real difference in terms relates to pension only, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science considers that it will be possible to demonstrate that net remuneration is no different from that at Harwell. Harwell is not now expanding, and there is no obvious reason to think that it offers better prospects or greater scientific attraction than those at the Rutherford Laboratory.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to transferability. There will be no pension obstacles to transfers between the Science Research Council and A.E.A. or other parts of the public sector. Service with the former will count under the new employer. As regards transfers from the A.E.A. to the Civil Service and the Research Councils, experience over the past two years is that over 150 staff have transferred from the A.E.A. to the Civil Service, of whom 66 were scientists or engineers. This does not suggest that Civil Service terms are relatively unattractive at the present time. Transfers from the A.E.A. to industry from among those entitled to carry their pension with them are relatively few in number. As I said in the debate on Second Reading, the whole question of pension rights as they affect mobility between Government service, industry, universities, and within industry between one firm and another, is at the moment being actively considered by the Government. I do not think we shall find a good solution until we have gone into the matter much more deeply than any of us has at the moment; but for the present I much regret that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
8.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I must say I think the noble Lord's reply to this is
792
even more unsatisfactory than his reply was to the debate we have just had on the clause stand part. I really am very astonished by the content of this reply. We are all familiar with the phrase, "The whole matter is under active consideration". That affords no consolation to any of us who have heard it so many times, and have said it on occasions. It is a very familiar phrase. It holds out very little hope for the future, I have found in the light of considerable experience. There surely is here an extraordinary passion for uniformity in relation to the staff of the Science Research Council. That is what we are asked to justify: that really you cannot, under these Councils, make any exception at all. The point I want to stress is that apparently everyone, except the Government, agrees that you can make an exception from the general rule for people who are recruited to NIRNS.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges told us that for other entrants into other branches everyone is content for the Civil Service scheme to operate. But what the Government are doing under this Bill—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for drawing attention to it—is themselves creating an anomaly within the very same establishment. You will have two people doing identical jobs, joining at different dates on different terms of service and in different pension schemes. I cannot believe that that will redound to the efficiency of the establishment. I can see its being a considerable source of friction and discontent.
There is the point to which it does not seem to me the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has paid much attention—he recognises there is the difficulty, but he provided no solution—the difficulty of recruitment with Harwell absolutely next door. Does he really suggest the Institute will be able to get the recruits it wants—it is true they are fewer in number—when Harwell is wanting recruits of the very same type and is able to offer better terms? I must say this seems to me to be a nonsense. Again I would press the noble Lord to say that he will give further consideration to it. There cannot be much money involved; I should have thought it was very little. I am quite certain that if the Government adhere to this decision it will give the gravest dissatisfaction.

793
The noble Lord must bear in mind the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said; that this part of Berkshire is not thickly populated. It is not as if you have a great number of people from whom to recruit these technicians and assistants on whom so much depends. I am addressing the noble Lord, Lord Snow. I see Lord Shepherd is also doing so. If the noble Lord, Lord Sheperd, can be more effective than I am in persuading the noble Lord, Lord Snow, to change the attitude he has just announced, then I welcome his assistance. In all seriousness, there cannot be much money involved in this. Why should we have this passion for uniformity? It is a nonparty political question, and it seems to me to the highest degree common sense, if you are recruiting people as technicians and assistants to one establishment, that they at least ought to have the same terms of service and pension.
I have only one other point. I really dissent from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, here. I think it would be a pity to make this Amendment apply for a limited time of only two years. I think it should be made to apply until there is introduced some new scheme applicable to all the entrants, getting the degree of uniformity or flexibility that the noble Lord is aiming for in the long run, because to say that it is only for two years merely means that one will have the same problem arising at the end of those two years.
I do not want to take up any more time at this hour of night. I have spoken as shortly as I can. But I must say that I thought the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, extremely powerful and worthy of more consideration. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will say that he will give it that consideration, and take rather the line that we did on the last debate. If not, I must say that I think that we shall have to put down an Amendment and be quite firm about it. I will not say more at the present time.
LORD SNOW: There is an Amendment before us now. The noble and learned Viscount has asked me to give an undertaking that we will have another look. I have to say that this has been looked at extremely carefully, and with a good deal of agony on the part of a good many persons. However, I am
794
prepared to say that we will have yet another look. I think it would be wrong for me to hold out extravagant hopes, because the arguments are exceedingly difficult and complicated. The noble and learned Viscount accuses us of having a passion for uniformity in the broad; but he himself seems to have a passion for uniformity in one corner of Berkshire. Whatever you do you are going to find some difficulty. However, we will give an undertaking to have another look, and that I am afraid we must do without commitment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In that event I suppose my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BRIDGES: Yes. I wish first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Snow, as I ought to have done when I rose previously, for the kind things he said about me in relation to the first matter put forward. In the light of the undertaking he has given, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

VIETNAM
8.24 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy for securing a political settlement of the situation in Vietnam. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to put the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I raise this issue for four purposes. The first is to seek to end the state of war in Vietnam which has gone on now for 25 years. First, there was the resistance to the Japanese occupation, then the struggle against French colonialism, and now the civil war, with the American intervention. Secondly, I raise this issue in the hope that it may help prevent the war expanding (of which there is a real danger) to China, Russia and perhaps to the world. Thirdly, my object is to assist a settlement in the wider regions of Indo-China, Laos and Cambodia, whose internal conflicts are intensified by the war in Vietnam; and, fourthly, to help to give the people of

795
Vietnam at last the opportunity to rebuild life on a basis of security and freedom.
We must begin our consideration of the situation to-day by going back to the Geneva Conference of 1954. That Conference was a great occasion. It gave not only promise of a settlement of the problems of South-East Asia, but also the hope of reconciliation between the West and the Communist world when hostility between them was developing dangerously. Many of us in this House will remember how we spoke at that time of our faith in the spirit of Geneva. I want to-night to pay a tribute to the part which was played at that Conference by the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I wrote him and indicated that I should be making reference to him here. I have heard that he has returned to the West Indies, and all of us will wish him a continued recovery of health when he is there.
I think that probably the noble Earl was a little surprised when I indicated that I was going to refer to him appreciatively. We had our deep and passionate differences with Lord Avon in later years, particularly in regard to Suez; but I hope that we shall remember not only the tragedy of Suez, but also the triumph of the Geneva Conference, for which he was so responsible. His inspiration at that Conference not only opened the door to peace in Indo-China, but led to the hope of peace in a wider field, and it lifted Britain at that stage to the moral leadership of the whole world. This was the more notable event because Lord Avon stood out for principles and policy which were rejected by America. He proved that Britain had the right and the power to make our independent contribution to the peace of the world. I wish we had had more of this attitude in recent years, and I hope that we shall have a return to that attitude to-day.
The General Agreement and the Declaration which were adopted at the Geneva Conference still provide the basis of peace in Vietnam. I propose to remind the House of their main provisions, because they are relevant to the present situation. They can be summarised in nine points as follows. First, cease-fire and withdrawal of military units into the two zones, one North and one South of the 17th Parallel: Clause 4 of the Declaration. Second, No Intro-
796
duction of fresh military personnel from outside: Article 16. Third, No 1mport of war materials or weapons of any type except as replacement: Article 17. Fourth, no military base under the control of a foreign State in either of the two regrouping zones: Article 18. Fifth, neither zone to adhere to any military alliance: Article 8. Sixth, the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary: Clause 6 of the Declaration. Seventh, general elections shall be held in July, 1956, under the supervision of an International Commission, preceded by preliminary consultations between the competent representative authorities of the two zones: Clause 7. Eighth, an International Supervisory Commission composed of representatives of India, Poland and Canada to supervise the execution of the Agreement. Ninth, the members of the Conference agree to consult one another on any question which may be referred to them by the International Supervisory Commission in order to study such measures as may prove necessary to ensure that the Agreements are respected: Clause 13.
There is no doubt that the Government of the United Kingdom at that time accepted entirely both the Declaration and the Agreements. Lord Avon said at the end of the conference:
"On behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, I associate myself with the Final Declaration of this Conference."
His concluding words were:
"I am quite sure that each one of us here hopes that the work which we have done will help to strengthen the forces working for peace."
And that work could have had that result, had it not been for the fact that two Governments at the Geneva Conference declined to accept the Declaration and the Agreements. One was the Government of the United States; the other was the Government of South Vietnam. But in the case of the Government of the United States, Mr. Bedell Smith, its representative, did say that
"… it will refrain from the threat or the use of force to disturb them"—
that is, the Agreements.
I do not propose to follow the sad development of succeeding events in Vietnam. They can be summarised in this way. For more than five years, as

797
the first ten reports of the International Commission indicate, the Agreements were observed by the Government of North Vietnam and respected by China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom. But during that period, as the reports of the International Commission also indicate (and remember that India and Canada served on that Commission with Poland), the Agreements were persistently flouted by the Government of South Vietnam and the Government of the United States. After five years of frustration, the Viet Cong rebellion began. The Americans had already sent in a Military Aid Advisory Group. The American military support has now grown to 23,000 troops.
I think that it is generally recognised, and indeed widely so in America itself, that the United States has lost the war. Two-thirds of the territory of South Vietnam is now in the hands of the National Liberation Front. The Government of the United States have also failed to establish stable Governments in South Vietnam. Within the last few weeks no fewer than seven Governments of South Vietnam have come to power, and have been overthrown, with consequent utter instability. I do not think anybody in this House would pretend that those Governments were democratic or had the authority of the people.
Despite the fact that the United States Government have failed to win the war against the guerrilla forces or to establish a stable Government, in one sphere their power remains: that is, in the air. It is now evident that they have had the expectation for some time that their troops in South Vietnam would be attacked by Viet Cong. They made their preparations for reprisals upon North Vietnam if that happened. We are authoritatively informed that those plans had been prepared at least two months ago. The attacks have now been made on North Vietnam and in consequence we have the dangerous situation with which we are all faced.
My main purpose to-night is to seek a solution of this problem. I wish to put before the House six points which I believe will contribute towards it. The first is this. It is clear from what I have said that the United Kingdom is absolutely committed to the terms of the Declaration and the Agreement at the
798
Geneva Conference. As we are committed to that Declaration and Agreement, we must consequently decline to countenance the course which the United States and the Saigon Governments have followed in South Vietnam. Secondly, a political settlement must be sought. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are actively seeking one. The United Kingdom has special responsibility as co-Chairman with Russia of the Geneva Conference. There is some mystery regarding Russia's attitude, but I would urge that we should not be tied to reconvening the Geneva Conference. The important thing is to get negotiations going in whatever form.
Thirdly, I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply to-night whether we are having consultations with the Governments of the Commonwealth about this situation. It was inspiring to many of us that, in the first days when the danger developed, the Prime Minister of India should have made his declaration for a settlement by negotiation rather than by the force of arms. Both India and Canada are on the International Commission. The Geneva Agreement laid it down that any question which may be referred to the co-Chairmen by the International Supervisory Commission should be considered. I hope that we are in very close consultation with India and Canada and with other members of the Commonwealth, who might contribute very powerfully to influencing the Governments and the parties which are concerned.
Fourthly, my Lords, I would urge that the first necessity is a cease-fire. The Foreign Secretary has urged that Viet Cong should end its attacks. I hope Viet Cong will. But a cease-fire cannot be a matter for action by Viet Cong alone. There are four elements which are engaged in the fighting in South Vietnam—Viet Cong, North Vietnam, but also the Governments at Saigon and America—and any cease-fire must include all the forces which are now operating in Vietnam.
The obvious preliminary steps towards a cease-fire must be by diplomatic approaches. I believe—and I welcome the fact—that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are already making their approaches to the United States and to Russia. I would urge that they should also make that approach to China, which, after all, this country recognises and

799
which is even more closely involved. We should also make our views known to the Government of North Vietnam and perhaps, through that Government, to Viet Cong. I believe that if those steps were taken we could obtain a cease-fire in Vietnam if it were associated with a proposal for a conference.
The fifth point which I am putting to the House is that, after those diplomatic approaches, the United Kingdom with Russia should take the lead in calling a conference. I do not necessarily say, a renewal of the Geneva Conference. It might be a conference of Governments more directly concerned; the technique matters little. The important thing is that we should get discussions going.
My Lords, I believe that prospects are favourable for a settlement if we can bring that conference together. Not only the articles which have appeared in The Guardian, from my friend the Member for Nottingham, Ashfield, in another place, but other sources, have indicated that North Vietnam and Viet Cong would now accept terms of a settlement which would certainly be welcomed by any Government which endorsed the Geneva Agreement, and which I think America would find it very difficult to reject. Those terms are, first, that there shall still be two Governments in North and South Vietnam, in the first instance, allowing events to determine in the future when reunification takes place. Secondly, the Government of South Vietnam shall be a national Government including Viet Cong, but also other representative sections of the people of South Vietnam. One would have hoped that the experience of these last few months had shown that, unless one does have a representative Government of that character, there can be no stable Government in South Vietnam.
Thirdly—and this is tremendously important—the Government of South Vietnam would be both politically and militarily disengaged, both from the Communist bloc and from the Western bloc. Fourthly, the Government of North Vietnam would be militarily disengaged from the Communist bloc and, quite clearly, from the Western bloc. It is too much to ask that it shall be politically disengaged, though I express the view from what knowledge I have
800
that the Government of North Vietnam is not likely to come under the tutelage either of China or of Russia. It is much more likely to become the Yugoslavia of the Asian Continent. The above conditions would involve the withdrawal of United States troops and the closing of its bases in South Vietnam, and a prohibition upon the United States of further military equipment. But, equally, they would involve the withdrawal of military aid by North Vietnam or China or Russia to the Viet Cong. They would neutralise South Vietnam completely both militarily and politically. Surely these proposals provide the opportunity for, at least, negotiations.
I want to make two concluding points. The first is that there is great hope today in the reaction of American opinion to this situation. Their soldiers were killed. It is natural in that situation that there should be a feeling of indignation and that passions should rise. One pays tribute to the maturity of American opinion to-day, because despite that intense feeling the Americans have looked at this situation in a realistic way, and with the hope of peace.
The second point is that I want to make a great appeal to my own Party and to my own leadership. We are dedicated to the cause of the freedom of peoples and the peace of the world. In this House we have an honoured Member who has served both these causes with unique courage and imagination, Lord Attlee. Under his guidance the nationhood of other Asian peoples—India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma—was recognised. More than that. At a moment of great danger to the peace of the world, in a situation not dissimilar from to-day's, when many people in Washington were thinking in terms of bombing China across the Korean border, my noble friend Lord Attlee flew to Washington and dissuaded the President from that course of action. I do not believe it is too much to say that he may have saved the world from war by that initiative. The danger is with us now. I ask the Prime Minister, I ask the Foreign Secretary, I ask the Government of our Party, again to prove that the United Kingdom in its own independence can contribute by its initiative to the freedom of peoples and to the peace of the world.
8.51 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the Question which my noble friend Lord Brockway has put on the Order Paper. I agree with a considerable amount of his speech. I think also that he has rendered a service in raising this matter at this time. My Lords, there is no doubt of the widespread concern about the South Vietnam situation. It is the most dangerous crisis point in the world at this moment. We know that during recent weeks the situation has gravely deteriorated and there is a growing fear that the conflict may degenerate into a dangerous threat to world peace. The situation has been greatly complicated by the absence, as my noble friend pointed out, of political stability in South Vietnam itself. He used the figure seven, but my investigation shows that there have been at least ten political crises in Saigon within the short period of fourteen months. This seems incredible irresponsibility in the face of persistent internal troubles and is bound to discourage the support of the people, whose conditions are in a deplorable state.
I am not going to spend time reviewing the events which have helped to produce this complex and critical situation. My noble friend covered the ground adequately for the purposes of this debate. I want to confine myself to only a few of the points that belong to the present situation, and in this I am not going to apportion praise or blame. I need only remind your Lordships that in recent weeks there have been damaging armed attacks by the Viet Cong guerrillas against the South Vietnam Government forces and positions, one attack involving serious loss of American lives. This was followed by retaliatory air action by the United States of America and South Vietnam against limited military targets in North Vietnam which were said to be centres of support and supply for the Viet Cong guerrillas in the South.
My Lords, here is the heart of the danger. It seems to be generally accepted that North Vietnam has for a long time been furnishing the Viet Cong rebels with men highly trained in jungle warfare, as well as training Viet Cong reinforcements, and that it has been providing military equipment, ammunition, direction and organisation for Viet Cong operations. So long as North Vietnam continues to make available these various
802
forms of military aid there will be constant danger of incidents involving retaliation. So far, Hanoi has not shown any evidence that this aid will stop, except on terms which will not be accepted. Their main demand is the withdrawal of all American military personnel from the country. On the other hand, the United States Government have repeatedly made it clear that they seek no wider war, and that they are acting, on the invitation of the South Vietnam Government, merely in defence of the independence and security of South Vietnam which is faced with a rebellion encouraged and supported by men, arms and direction from the North.
If following armed attacks involving American lives the Americans decided to retaliate on a big enough scale against North Vietnam, there can be little doubt that it could inflict such damage as to put a stop to North Vietnamese intervention. But it is just as surely true that such an enterprise would bring about Chinese and perhaps also Russian intervention. There would be almost certain danger of another Korea. Nobody wants this to happen: neither the United States of America, nor China, nor Russia. However, for the Americans to pull out without a guaranteed peace settlement would leave South Vietnam to a predictable fate because it is certain that North Vietnam would continue to aid the Communist Viet Cong.
There would be other serious consequences. American and other non-Communist influences in South-East Asia generally would be fatally weakened. The whole of South-East Asia would become a Chinese sphere of influence, which means that it would pass under the domination of Chinese Communist Imperialism. It would not be long before Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and even Malaysia, which is already defending its independence against Indonesian confrontation, would be in danger. And it might not end there. Even now one asks: What is the purpose of the 13 to 16 Chinese divisions which have been concentrated near India's border with Tibet, and the new air bases which have just been constructed?
My Lords, there is the dilemma. The United States are not ready to withdraw unless there is a real settlement: North Vietnam is not ready to stop its interventionist activities unless the Americans

803
leave—and what is at stake is the peace of the world. Yet surely no one believes that a satisfactory solution can be found by military means. The only alternative, as my noble friend has said, is a negotiated settlement. What is urgently needed is to get a cease-fire followed by a peace conference. Various suggestions have been advanced to this end from different quarters. One is for a Far Eastern Summit Conference, where America and China would come together, face to face. Another is that the Geneva Conference should be reconvened. A third is that the Johnson-Kosygin meeting, forecast to take place before the end of this year, should be advanced, and that they should consider as the first item on their agenda the issuing of an invitation to China to attend.
One thing is certain: there will not be stable peace in South-East Asia until the United States and China have arrived at some form of working understanding which will remove the danger of direct and indirect conflict between them. I know—indeed, we all know—that it is not within the power of Her Majesty's Government alone to bring the opposing parties together. But no doubt, as my noble friend has said, the Soviet Government could use its influence with Peking and Her Majesty's Government could seek to use persuasion in Washington. I believe that a co-operative initiative rests in the hands of these two Governments, who are responsible for the co-chairmanship of the Geneva Conference—and it should be used.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister of State, who is to reply, may be able to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are engaged in a diplomatic initiative. I am not concerned here to urge the particular form of conference that should be held: that is obviously a matter to be agreed by the participants. The important thing at this stage—and this I would emphasise in conclusion—is to get private discussions going to bring about, first, a cease-fire, and, secondly, an early resort to negotiations; and I hope we may be told that Her Majesty's Government are now actively engaged in that urgent task.
9.4 p.m.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords. I feel that we should thank my
804
noble friend for giving this House an opportunity of debating, even at this late hour and in a House where there are few Members present, a matter which should be of the greatest concern to every Government in the world. I am quite sure that there are representative people in America who are astonished to learn that our Parliament has failed so far to give adequate time to debates on this subject.
Like other noble Lords here, every Sunday night I am accustomed to listen to Mr. Alistair Cooke's comments on the radio on American affairs. Mr. Cooke was born in England but has lived in America, and I would say that he represents the liberal voice of the United States with, of course, a strong bias towards this country. It is significant that on these last two Sundays his broadcasts have dealt exclusively with Vietnam, which rather suggests that he considers the matter of such concern that he, as an experienced journalist and commentator, was prepared to risk the disapproval of the millions who listen to him who would have preferred something of a more entertaining character.
I believe that these two broadcasts were deliberately arranged in order to focus the attention of the people in this country on the seriousness of the situation. It seemed to me that Mr. Cooke was subject to some considerable strain in defending his adopted country—for his knowledge, common sense and, surely, his international background must incline him towards the views of the increasing number of Americans who are looking at the whole picture anew. He said on the radio that the newspapers in America were full of letters and articles criticising the situation in Vietnam.
My Lords, one can judge President Johnson only from what we hear of him, and see of him on our television screens, but one is inclined, I think, to suspect that President Johnson, in his heart, must be eager to wind up the Vietnam commitment. But, as Mr. Cooke asked—and he specifically posed this question on the radio on Sunday night: How can this be done without losing face? Indeed, it was a most remarkable broadcast because in his peroration, if I may so call his winding-up remarks, he said:
"To anybody who is listening to me now I ask you to write to the White House."

805
And after all, one cannot be jocular about matters of this kind.
The question he had posed was a most curious rhetorical one; nevertheless, it indicated that this man, who is a well-known world commentator, was asking this country to help by raising its voice in those quarters where it might be likely to be heard. There is no doubt about this. After years of warfare it would be difficult to try to save your face without exacerbating partisan passions; and we know that President Johnson, quite understandably, is very anxious to present, if possible, an all-Party face to the world in international matters. But it seems to me not only that Britain can help, by back-stairs methods—and all those who have been in Government know well that diplomacy in this respect is of the utmost importance—but that our diplomats surely can be helped if those who have a great deal of knowledge, sympathy and understanding of the position would ventilate the whole question and thereby assist in educating politically those Americans who are obsessed with this fear of losing face.
There are two aspects of war which my noble friend has mentioned but which have to be brought home, I think, to the Americans. First, in 1954, when the Fourteen-Nation Conference on Indo-China met in Geneva and arranged the cease-fire, when Vietnam was partitioned many Communist soldiers were left South of the armistice line; so that the war in Vietnam has all the makings of a civil war in which no other country should be associated. Second, it was decided that Vietnam should be united after free elections, and every country concerned with this decision signed the agreement, with the exception of John Foster Dulles, for the United States. There are, I suppose, sections in America who feel they must be loyal to John Foster Dulles and his very serious omission.
Undoubtedly this fear of "losing face" has been responsible on untold occasions for precipitate action which has resulted in war with its ever-widening consequences. When I read about the First World War and about the Second World War, I find historians saying time and time again that if only at a certain stage somebody had raised
806
his voice…. But once you are committed, those who are responsible for conducting war are desperately afraid (if I might say this, as a woman) in a schoolboy fashion, of criticism of themselves on the grounds of lack of courage. The Korean war might have ended in disaster if General MacArthur had not been replaced, following his decision that the bombing of the Chinese mainland was essential to success. But President Truman took decisive action which might have been interpreted by some in America as weakness in the face of the enemy. Again, not long ago, President Kennedy blockaded Cuba to prevent more arms from reaching the country. Mr. Khrushchev, a shrewd and realistic head of a powerful nation, removed the missiles from Cuba rather than precipitate war. In the light of history, could one say that the stature of Mr. Truman and Mr. Khrushchev as statesmen had been diminished by their decisions?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: On the contrary, as we look back we say that these men had the courage to say: "This thing shall not be done." I say this as a politician: it takes a big man to make decisions which court unpopularity. The small man can always be relied upon to do the popular thing. And I dare say it requires an act of courage in certain circumstances to admit defeat.
The time has come when the fighting in Vietnam should be stopped. Apart from the loss of life and the waste of valuable resources, this war must be doing untold harm to the United States' image in the uncommitted nations of the world. Of course, the best facesaving organisation which has been contrived is the United Nations Organisation, and it is a matter of serious concern that at this time the General Assembly appears to be suffering from a near-fatal illness. Of course, the Security Council could be called upon to conduct a peacekeeping operation; but unfortunately the Security Council no longer commands confidence among the smaller Powers. Undoubtedly, the Charter is out of date, particularly Chapter 7, which gives major powers to the Security Council, when world opinion regards the General

807
Assembly as being the more fully representative body.
In Vietnam—we have to say this—the United States are taking on the mantle of the United Nations but without the authority. The motives of the United States and of the United Nations are very different. The United States are trying to promote their method of government as against what they consider to be the intolerable system of Communism. The United Nations, on the other hand, is a peace-keeping body, which endeavours to encourage warring countries to co-exist. The United States persistence in intervention in Vietnam has resulted in prosecuting war between two ideologies.
Finally, let me say that a war which the whole world views with apprehension should not be encouraged. And we, in this Parliament of ours, must be allowed the privilege of being critical of American policy, because, after all, that is the prerogative of a true friend.
9.17 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I cannot agree, of course, with all his views on this pressing and difficult problem, especially with his picture of the etiology of the present Vietnam situation—indeed, I suppose that he would not expect me to—but, if I may, I should like to pay a tribute to the sincerity and compassion of his approach to the debate and to the depth of his knowledge and experience. His resume of the history of the Geneva Agreements was a valuable background for this short debate, and the five points which he put forward towards the end of his remarks were in general helpful and constructive. Here again, he will not expect the Government to accept them all. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for the deep thought he has clearly given to this subject. I am most grateful, too, for the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. They were, as one might have expected, both knowledgeable and constructive. I found the remarks of the noble Baroness particularly moving, although perhaps I may take her up on one point and say that the problem of face-saving is not all on one side.
808
Instead of commenting in detail on what has been said, perhaps I may most aptly begin by answering, so far as I am able to do so, the Question that stands on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. My right honourable friends are deeply concerned with the situation in Vietnam and we hope that Her Majesty's Government can play a really effective part in resolving the present problems and in arriving at a basis for a peaceful settlement. I can say that to this end we have been actively engaged in diplomatic consultations of a confidential nature. These consultations are still going on, and I hope that the House will understand that it would be unwise to prejudice the results of much patient and discreet diplomacy by making some premature public announcement. However, I can assure your Lordships that, as soon as it is possible to do so, I will inform the House of the progress we have made and of the further action which we consider could most fruitfully lead to an end to the fighting and to an eventual settlement. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would be irresponsible in the extreme to endanger the success of these very delicate consultations by revealing either their scope or their nature now, even though to do so might resolve some of the doubts that quite clearly exist in the minds of my noble friends. I can, however, say that we have been in close and continuous touch at diplomatic level with the members of the Commonwealth, especially those most closely concerned with this problem.
I think it might be of interest to your Lordships if I briefly outlined some of the principles which are guiding Her Majesty's Government in their consultations. The policy of the Government is to promote and support the right of the people of South Vietnam to conduct their own affairs without interference from the North, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, to enable them to build their lives upon a secure and peaceful foundation. And I think I should make it clear here that the Viet Cong activities in the South are not, as has sometimes been suggested, purely and simply operations of an indigenous force or a national liberal front against the Government in power. They are, as we

809
have heard, given help, comfort and support from North Vietnam. If these operations and North Vietnamese support for them were to come to an end, then I think we might be able to look forward realistically to some sort of peaceful settlement in the area. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, a cease-fire cannot be unilateral; it must be multilateral. The Government, of course, accept this. But I must confess that I find it difficult to see how this can be achieved so long as the present Viet Cong attacks continue.
It has been suggested, too, that the present delicate and serious situation in Vietnam—and the Government accept that it is serious—has been brought about, or at least aggravated, by the American action in attacking military targets in North Vietnam. I must tell your Lord-ships that this is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. We regard these American operations as a carefully limited response to attacks made on their soldiers and their military units in South Vietnam. What they have done is to draw attention to the gravity of dangers that have existed, as we have heard, for many years. It is, I think, naive to suggest, on the one hand, that these American counter measures were carried out suddenly and without warning, or to suggest, on the other hand, that the United States are in some way to blame for preparing these counter-measures in advance.
The United Stales Government have, in fact—and this is public knowledge to everyone—given repeated and clear warnings of the extent to which they intend to exercise their right of self-defence, and their recent response to Viet Cong attacks should have surprised no one. Indeed, I do not believe the United States Government could have reacted in any other way. Moreover, as President Johnson has repeatedly made clear—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and President Johnson last said this on February 17—the United States seek no wider war in South-East Asia. I must tell your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government are determined to maintain the closest collaboration with the United States Government in their efforts to seek a peaceful solution in Indo-China.
A persistent element in the concern that Her Majesty's Government should take some initiative towards securing a possible solution in Vietnam has been that it
810
should be in the context of their co-chairmanship of the Geneva Conference. But I would ask my noble friends to bear in mind that the 1954 Geneva Agreement did not, in fact, make any provision for Britain and Russia to continue to exercise the duties of co-Chairman. It is true that since 1954 it has become customary to regard Britain and Russia as having a special responsibility for trying to see that the Geneva Agreements are observed. This, however, I must emphasise, has been entirely informal; it has depended solely upon the voluntary co-operation of the two Governments concerned. Indeed, only in respect of Laos, under the terms of the 1962 Agreement, was it given any formal expression.
I think it important to point out, especially to those who say that there is some mystery about the Soviet Government's attitude to this, that they have reminded us very recently that the 1954 agreements contain no provision for the continuing exercise of any special functions by the co-Chairmen. I do not think it will be possible to resolve this grave situation in Vietnam without the active collaboration of all the Powers chiefly concerned in the dispute. Of course, this includes the Soviet Government, and the Soviet Government are aware of our views.
I think, however, that, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, it would be much too narrow an approach to begin talking about a Geneva Conference. I suggest that it is no good going to Geneva or anywhere else and sitting round a table to discuss Vietnam disarmament, trade, or anything else, unless there are some firm and constructive proposals to be put forward and unless there is a basis for a settlement. Once we arrive at the basis for a settlement, the means of negotiation can be arranged quite easily. When the political will to arrive at a solution of these problems exists, the machinery for doing so is a matter of the utmost simplicity.
I should like, if your Lordships will permit me, to sum up the attitude of Her Majesty's Government by repeating that we are deeply concerned with the situation in Vietnam. We will continue to seek for a means within our power to achieve a peaceful settlement, but we insist that the first need is some indication of readiness to do so on the part

811
of the North Vietnamese. Meanwhile, I should hope, in spite of the very real concern that must exist in the minds of all of us about the brutal and wasteful fighting that is going on in Indo-China, that we shall find it possible to keep a sense of proportion about it. We should recall (and, indeed, we have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway) that there has been fighting in Vietnam, on and off, for over twenty years. When some particularly violent episode occurs, such as the destruction of the American barracks by the Viet Cong, or the sharp and prompt retaliation by the aircraft of the United States Seventh Fleet, of course people become more actively aware of the problem. The war, for a little while, comes a little closer to all of us.
So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, these latest events add a real sense of urgency to all the efforts which have been made and which, I repeat, are now in progress towards a peaceful solution. In this context, I think we should do well to remind ourselves that in recent years the United States has made a notable and courageous contribution to the defence of freedom all over the world. I believe, in conclusion, that if the Powers chiefly concerned in this terrible problem can finally arrive at a basis for negotiation, all of us, all those countries that have taken part in these efforts, will have earned the gratitude of scores of millions of people in South-East Asia.
9.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships a moment at this time of night, but I should not like the House to adjourn without saying that I welcome the well-balanced and clear statement which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I should like to add that I am satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are just as anxious and just as active in the cause of peace as those who are pressing them to be more active than they are. It is a very delicate, very complex situation in Vietnam. There may well be scope for the friends of the United States to give advice which
812
will lead to a peaceful solution, for which, of course, we all hope. But I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, balanced that by pointing out that South Vietnam is an independent country which has a right to freedom; that it is entitled to its independence, and that for some years it has been the victim of open, brazen aggression on the part of the Communists in the North.
I will conclude by just saying that I have every sympathy with the six points which were put by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I would only add one more point of my own. To his statement that we were dedicated to the freedom of peoples and to the cause of peace, I would just add that we shall not necessarily advance the cause of peace by surrendering to Chinese imperialism, or the freedom of peoples by deserting our Allies.

WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

LONDON BOROUGH ARCHITECTS
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether every London borough council in the central area has now appointed a borough architect; and, if not, which borough council has not yet done so.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON: The London Government Act requires each London borough council to appoint a borough architect
"as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any event not later than 1st April, 1968".
I understand that the councils of the borough of Croydon, the borough of Greenwich, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and the borough of Richmond upon Thames have yet to appoint their borough architects.

SUPPORT BUYING OF POTATOES
The Earl of CROMARTIE The Earl of CROMARTIE asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the large estimated surplus of potatoes in the country, and the further disastrous drop in price which followed their decision, taken against the advice of the Potato Marketing Board, not to support the market, they will now reconsider the possibility of supporting the market with a buying programme.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION: As my right honourable friend said in another place yesterday, we have decided that the situation has developed in such a way as to justify the introduction of support buying financed jointly by the Government and the Potato Marketing Board. The Government will meet two-thirds of the cost.
Since the beginning of February the average market price has again fallen and is now for the first time since October below the guaranteed price. We believe that this is the result of exaggerated rumours about the size of the surplus, and that the present level of prices is in no way justified by the supply situation over the country as a whole. Nevertheless it now seems that the average price for the season may not reach the level of the guarantee, and we have decided that support buying is necessary in order to steady
814
the market. We are satisfied that its introduction should not lead to an increase in prices to consumers greater than the usual seasonal increase.
Last December the Board undertook a support buying programme at their own expense. The Government have agreed to make some contribution; but think it reasonable for it to be no more than two-thirds of the cost over and above what can be financed from the Board's special reserve of about £600,000.

POLICE TRAINING IN USE OF FIREARMS
LORD SWANSEA LORD SWANSEA asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the rare occasions on which it is necessary for members of the police forces to be armed, what instruction is given to them in the use of firearms (especially pistols), other than that given in voluntary rifle clubs, in order that they may carry out such duties effectively without being a source of danger to each other or to members of the public.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM: It is for chief officers of police to decide what training in the use of firearms should be given to members of their forces, and it has not been found necessary to issue any general guidance.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.